As it is known, NATO will determine her new "strategic concept" in this year.
I have written my comment on NATO's official web site, "NATO's New Strategic Concept Discussion Forum" page. The discussion headline included "NATO transformation."
There are many different approaches about "new strategic concept". Here is a short evaulation from me. I will consider the issue intensively in the further articles.
Sincerely,
Dr.Deniz Tansi
“Global terror threat” will be the main challenge against world’s security. NATO’s main concept seems to prevent terrorism attacks, meanwhile to struggle with terrorism.
Energy security, non- proliferation of WMD, fundamentalism and non state actors headlines are one within the other. Assymetric war concept is the main base to perceive the new century.
From Center Asia to Middle East field is so significant to found stabilization. In this context “out of area” about NATO missions would become more intensive. Beside security stabilization, economic prosperity and substantial democracies are part of NATO’s approach in the world.
Currently NATO zone include a geography from Pacific Ocean to Black Sea.
NATO’s challenges and new missions would emphasize to strength “deterrence” for democracies. It means to enlarge democratic structures on the earth.
Related web site:
http://natostratcon.info/2010/01/11/natos-transformation/#comments
January 28, 2010 at 6:12 pm
29 Ocak 2010 Cuma
27 Ocak 2010 Çarşamba
BAŞBUG-ASHKENAZI MEETING
Turkish Armed Forces (TAF)Chief of Staff General İlker Başbuğ and Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Lt-General Gabi Ashkenazi met Wednesday.
Yaakov Katz, "Ashkenazi meets Turkish counterpart", The Jerusalem Post, January 27, 2010.
http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=166997
The meeting was very significant. Tension between two countries was very high for last 1 year. The problem started with Turkish PM's "one minute" challenge in Davos Summit. (January 2009) His anger intensified to David Ignatius who was the chair of the session. However his real target was Israeli president Shimon Peres. Peres defended Operation Cast Lead. The operation was fresh. Turkish PM accused him as "you know how to kill people.."
October 2009 was an another step to deepen the crisis. Turkish cancellation to Israel's attendance about Anatolian Eagle drill converted the crisis especially to "defense level". Serie of Farewell which was broadcasted in state run TV (TRT), showed Israeli soldiers as baby killers.
Despite the events, Israeli minister Ben Eliezer visited Turkish embassy about Turkish Republic Day reception in Tel Aviv. After he came Turkey in November 2009 and the next month (December 2009) Turkish-Israeli presidents met in Copenhag. As it is known, there was a climate summit in Copenhag. Peres repeated his invitation to Turkish president.
Ayalon's humiliation to Turkish ambassador in January 11, 2010 was related the serie of Valley of the Wolves Ambush. After he apologized from Turkish state and people.
His attitude was commented to prevent Israeli defense minister Barak's visit to Turkey. In spite of the tension, Barak came to Turkey in January 17, 2010. He has made consultations with Turkish FM Davutoğlu. The conversation continued for 3.5 hours. After he met Turkish defense minister Gönül. The meeting was about 1 hour. Turkish ambassador to Israel who was humilitated by Ayalon Oğuz Çelikkol attended the gatherings. Barak behaved closer to the ambassador. And he has described the relations as "strategic alliance". (We have evaulated before) It was the highest level for bilateral relations. But we are not sure, Turkish defence minister's announcement reflect the real situation or not?
Turkish-Israeli generals session in January 27, 2010 must be underlined. Two chief of staffs was in Brussels for participating "NATO military chiefs" summit. Israel is a not a member of NATO, but Israel was invitated to the gathering. Common agenda of Israel and NATO seems to struggle with "global terrorist threat".
In this case, Turkey-Israel has a rich infrastructure. Two countries signed Peripheral Pact in 1958. Their cooperation sustains especially military-defense and intelligence level. Turkey and Israel reinforced military cooperation with 1996 and 1997 treaties and also added economic cooperation.
Global terrorist threat headline is very important for NATO countries. Two generals approach is also a part of amendment effort like as Turkish-Israeli presidents' meeting in Copenhag and also Ben Eliezer's, Barak's Turkey visits.
Tangibly military cooperation is strategic for both of them. The other point bilateral cooperation is also Western axis' extension. Turkish-Israeli alignment is so important for US. And supported effectively. US blocks the crisis to reach further steps.
The critical question is NATO's potential approach to Hizballah and Hamas. In this context, Turkish cabinet's pro Islamic attitude to be problematic or to conform the general tendency?
We will see....
Yaakov Katz, "Ashkenazi meets Turkish counterpart", The Jerusalem Post, January 27, 2010.
http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=166997
The meeting was very significant. Tension between two countries was very high for last 1 year. The problem started with Turkish PM's "one minute" challenge in Davos Summit. (January 2009) His anger intensified to David Ignatius who was the chair of the session. However his real target was Israeli president Shimon Peres. Peres defended Operation Cast Lead. The operation was fresh. Turkish PM accused him as "you know how to kill people.."
October 2009 was an another step to deepen the crisis. Turkish cancellation to Israel's attendance about Anatolian Eagle drill converted the crisis especially to "defense level". Serie of Farewell which was broadcasted in state run TV (TRT), showed Israeli soldiers as baby killers.
Despite the events, Israeli minister Ben Eliezer visited Turkish embassy about Turkish Republic Day reception in Tel Aviv. After he came Turkey in November 2009 and the next month (December 2009) Turkish-Israeli presidents met in Copenhag. As it is known, there was a climate summit in Copenhag. Peres repeated his invitation to Turkish president.
Ayalon's humiliation to Turkish ambassador in January 11, 2010 was related the serie of Valley of the Wolves Ambush. After he apologized from Turkish state and people.
His attitude was commented to prevent Israeli defense minister Barak's visit to Turkey. In spite of the tension, Barak came to Turkey in January 17, 2010. He has made consultations with Turkish FM Davutoğlu. The conversation continued for 3.5 hours. After he met Turkish defense minister Gönül. The meeting was about 1 hour. Turkish ambassador to Israel who was humilitated by Ayalon Oğuz Çelikkol attended the gatherings. Barak behaved closer to the ambassador. And he has described the relations as "strategic alliance". (We have evaulated before) It was the highest level for bilateral relations. But we are not sure, Turkish defence minister's announcement reflect the real situation or not?
Turkish-Israeli generals session in January 27, 2010 must be underlined. Two chief of staffs was in Brussels for participating "NATO military chiefs" summit. Israel is a not a member of NATO, but Israel was invitated to the gathering. Common agenda of Israel and NATO seems to struggle with "global terrorist threat".
In this case, Turkey-Israel has a rich infrastructure. Two countries signed Peripheral Pact in 1958. Their cooperation sustains especially military-defense and intelligence level. Turkey and Israel reinforced military cooperation with 1996 and 1997 treaties and also added economic cooperation.
Global terrorist threat headline is very important for NATO countries. Two generals approach is also a part of amendment effort like as Turkish-Israeli presidents' meeting in Copenhag and also Ben Eliezer's, Barak's Turkey visits.
Tangibly military cooperation is strategic for both of them. The other point bilateral cooperation is also Western axis' extension. Turkish-Israeli alignment is so important for US. And supported effectively. US blocks the crisis to reach further steps.
The critical question is NATO's potential approach to Hizballah and Hamas. In this context, Turkish cabinet's pro Islamic attitude to be problematic or to conform the general tendency?
We will see....
19 Ocak 2010 Salı
SHIFTING AWAY FROM THE WEST....
Recently, I have underlined Turkish defense minister Vecdi Gönül's speech during Israeli defense minister Barak's visit. As it was remembered, he has announced Turkey and Israel as "strategic allies". And aforementioned in the last article, there was a contradiction in Gönül's comment why current Turkish pro Islamic government seems to be most problematic cabinet with Israel, on the other hand this approach is the most intensive evaulation on Turkish-Israeli relations. The tangible point, bilateral relations stands on alignment base.
Beside these developments, Israel's military intelligence chief Major General Amos Yadlin alleged that, "Turkey no longer needs a close relationship with Israel".
Jonathan Lis, "Turkey no longer needs a close relationship with Israel", Haaretz, January 19, 2010.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1143701.html
According to Yadlin, Turkey's main crossroad includes "a fundamental process of moving further away from the secular Ataturk approach, closer to a radical approach."
He concerns EU's negative approach about full membership to Turkey creates a cold shoulder effect on the country. So Turkey's attitude especially with AKP government, seeks to be closer with the Middle Eastern regimes.
But we must ask that "which Middle Eastern regimes?". There is a political divide for the region. One side indicates pro American moderate Islamic regimes like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon (not totaly), Saudi Arabia. The other side is related Iranian-Syrian alliance.
Turkey progressed relations with Iran and Syria. Turkish-Syrian relations is not in spite of US because US tries to isolate Iran in the region. However, Turkish-Iranian closer relations is questionable. Iran's challenge to the Western countries has a potential to convert a conflict. It does not mean necessarily a hot conflict. Even though, include embargo there can be some sanctions to Iran related uranium enrichment plan. Turkey is currently temporary member of UN Security Council. As it is known, Turkish FM Davutoğlu consider "zero problem with neighbors". It is a sympathetic slogan. But if all permanent member of Security Council's members endorse sanctions on Iran, what would Turkey do? We mean without veto situation would Turkey find any explanation about her attitude. As we remember, Turkey voted impartial in IAEA meeting about sanctions on Iran.
The problems about Islamic republic is not about producing nuclear weapon but also having proxy forces in Lebanon with Hizballah and in Gaza with Hamas.
Turkey's approach to Hamas in the context of AKP's cabinet is distressful. Social chaos in Gaza does not legitimate Hamas. Hamas realized a coup in 2007 and captured Gaza Strip unilaterally. Hamas cut Gaza's ties from the rest of the world except Iran-Syria. Turkey officially recognizes Palestine Authority why it was founded with international treaties, Israel also signed them. It is related Oslo process. In addition to this, AKP's ideological behaviour, structurally closer with Hamas. They criticize Fatah and Fatah's moderate approach to Israel. But in fact, Turkish Foreign Policy's main axis can not carry pro Hamas perceiving.
The similar situation is also about Hizballah. AKP's relations with Lebanese PM Hariri is so significant. Turkish Telekom's main partner is from Hariri's firm. At the same time Hariri is coalition partner with Hizballah. But it is not a volunteer partnership.
Turkish approach to Iraq is encouraged by US to sustain and recognize Kurdistan Regional Government (according to Iraq constitution). There is a potential to clash with Iran in Iraq for Turkey. In that, Iran sees Southern Iraq in her dominance.
Turkey's shifting away from the West becomes a main fear for the West. EU's policies about accession process structured a frustration for Turkish people. Public criticism on EU feeded anti Western masses also US invasion to Iraq reinforced the situation. Turkish public opinion is shaked with July 4, 2003 "sack crisis".
Israeli general's statement to indicate Turkey's membership to NATO lost her strategic importance for Turkey and Turkey does not need to progress her relations with Israel to show it to US and the other European countries.
Turkish people become more conservative and it effects Turkish Foreign Policy's applications. In spite of the events, Turkey is still in Western associations.
Rapid political Islamisation's influence is being felt in public sphere and current government's "strategic depth" policy tries to found a regional periphery, with a greater country.
But with which great country?
We can respond: USA
Beside these developments, Israel's military intelligence chief Major General Amos Yadlin alleged that, "Turkey no longer needs a close relationship with Israel".
Jonathan Lis, "Turkey no longer needs a close relationship with Israel", Haaretz, January 19, 2010.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1143701.html
According to Yadlin, Turkey's main crossroad includes "a fundamental process of moving further away from the secular Ataturk approach, closer to a radical approach."
He concerns EU's negative approach about full membership to Turkey creates a cold shoulder effect on the country. So Turkey's attitude especially with AKP government, seeks to be closer with the Middle Eastern regimes.
But we must ask that "which Middle Eastern regimes?". There is a political divide for the region. One side indicates pro American moderate Islamic regimes like Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon (not totaly), Saudi Arabia. The other side is related Iranian-Syrian alliance.
Turkey progressed relations with Iran and Syria. Turkish-Syrian relations is not in spite of US because US tries to isolate Iran in the region. However, Turkish-Iranian closer relations is questionable. Iran's challenge to the Western countries has a potential to convert a conflict. It does not mean necessarily a hot conflict. Even though, include embargo there can be some sanctions to Iran related uranium enrichment plan. Turkey is currently temporary member of UN Security Council. As it is known, Turkish FM Davutoğlu consider "zero problem with neighbors". It is a sympathetic slogan. But if all permanent member of Security Council's members endorse sanctions on Iran, what would Turkey do? We mean without veto situation would Turkey find any explanation about her attitude. As we remember, Turkey voted impartial in IAEA meeting about sanctions on Iran.
The problems about Islamic republic is not about producing nuclear weapon but also having proxy forces in Lebanon with Hizballah and in Gaza with Hamas.
Turkey's approach to Hamas in the context of AKP's cabinet is distressful. Social chaos in Gaza does not legitimate Hamas. Hamas realized a coup in 2007 and captured Gaza Strip unilaterally. Hamas cut Gaza's ties from the rest of the world except Iran-Syria. Turkey officially recognizes Palestine Authority why it was founded with international treaties, Israel also signed them. It is related Oslo process. In addition to this, AKP's ideological behaviour, structurally closer with Hamas. They criticize Fatah and Fatah's moderate approach to Israel. But in fact, Turkish Foreign Policy's main axis can not carry pro Hamas perceiving.
The similar situation is also about Hizballah. AKP's relations with Lebanese PM Hariri is so significant. Turkish Telekom's main partner is from Hariri's firm. At the same time Hariri is coalition partner with Hizballah. But it is not a volunteer partnership.
Turkish approach to Iraq is encouraged by US to sustain and recognize Kurdistan Regional Government (according to Iraq constitution). There is a potential to clash with Iran in Iraq for Turkey. In that, Iran sees Southern Iraq in her dominance.
Turkey's shifting away from the West becomes a main fear for the West. EU's policies about accession process structured a frustration for Turkish people. Public criticism on EU feeded anti Western masses also US invasion to Iraq reinforced the situation. Turkish public opinion is shaked with July 4, 2003 "sack crisis".
Israeli general's statement to indicate Turkey's membership to NATO lost her strategic importance for Turkey and Turkey does not need to progress her relations with Israel to show it to US and the other European countries.
Turkish people become more conservative and it effects Turkish Foreign Policy's applications. In spite of the events, Turkey is still in Western associations.
Rapid political Islamisation's influence is being felt in public sphere and current government's "strategic depth" policy tries to found a regional periphery, with a greater country.
But with which great country?
We can respond: USA
17 Ocak 2010 Pazar
"STRATEGIC ALLIANCE"
Turkish defense minister Vecdi Gönül stated a very interesting sentence during Israeli defense minister and leader of Labor Party Ehud Barak's visit . (January 17, 2010) He has evaulated bilateral relations as "strategic alliance". He has responded a journalist question, question was about, "Are Turkey and Israel strategic partners?" Turkish minister tried to indicate a less level but also have strategic importance. However "strategic alliance" is also significant. According to international relations experts, bilateral relations which sustain since 1949, reached military-defense-intelligence infrastructure with "peripheral pact" in 1958, developed with 1996 and 1997 treaties especially economically and militarily, expressed as an alignment not alliance.
The interesting point, current Turkish government seems to be most problematic government with Israel, but also consider being "alliance". It means to have confusion for Turkish Foreign Policy.
Before Gönül, Israeli minister met with Turkish foreign minister Davutoğlu. Meeting was about 3 and a half hour. Davutoğlu didn't make an explanation like Gönül. But it must be noted that, he called "zero problems with neighbors" for Turkey. Even though, Gönül announced Israel as a neighbor not physically but politically. And enhanced with alliance concept.
As it is known, according to cabinet, Turkey is US', Russia's, Syria's and Lebanon's "strategic partner". It means strategic partnership is used as useless.
In this context, "strategic partnership" explanation could be concerned "seriously" by foreign authorities? But Barak's visit has a positive potential for further term. Why Ayalon repeated his goofs. He emphasized if Turkish movies or series would go on, Israel to expel Turkish ambassador. In spite of Ayalon's statement, Turkish PM Erdoğan told to the media, "we don't care Ayalon's explanations, Barak's statement is essential for us, we will not deepen crisis".
These days not alliance but alignment has risks for Turkish-Israeli relations. But Turkey brought to Turkish-Israeli relations agenda "strategic alliance" concept first time in 60 years. It is attractive.
In the conclusion, US factor to bilateral relations must not be forgotten. When we think, each of them has an alliance relation with US, it can be understood better.
The interesting point, current Turkish government seems to be most problematic government with Israel, but also consider being "alliance". It means to have confusion for Turkish Foreign Policy.
Before Gönül, Israeli minister met with Turkish foreign minister Davutoğlu. Meeting was about 3 and a half hour. Davutoğlu didn't make an explanation like Gönül. But it must be noted that, he called "zero problems with neighbors" for Turkey. Even though, Gönül announced Israel as a neighbor not physically but politically. And enhanced with alliance concept.
As it is known, according to cabinet, Turkey is US', Russia's, Syria's and Lebanon's "strategic partner". It means strategic partnership is used as useless.
In this context, "strategic partnership" explanation could be concerned "seriously" by foreign authorities? But Barak's visit has a positive potential for further term. Why Ayalon repeated his goofs. He emphasized if Turkish movies or series would go on, Israel to expel Turkish ambassador. In spite of Ayalon's statement, Turkish PM Erdoğan told to the media, "we don't care Ayalon's explanations, Barak's statement is essential for us, we will not deepen crisis".
These days not alliance but alignment has risks for Turkish-Israeli relations. But Turkey brought to Turkish-Israeli relations agenda "strategic alliance" concept first time in 60 years. It is attractive.
In the conclusion, US factor to bilateral relations must not be forgotten. When we think, each of them has an alliance relation with US, it can be understood better.
15 Ocak 2010 Cuma
3rd LEBANON WAR?
Hizballah's leader Hassan Nasrallah challenged to change "region's face".
AFP, "Nasrallah: War will change region's face", ynetnews.com, January 15, 2010.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3834933,00.html
He means a new Middle East order. As far as to be understood, Nasrallah indicates "pro-Iranian regional hegemony". Iran's regional targets can be evaulated with these outlines:
- Eleminate pro American Sunni Arab regimes
- Make efforts into Turkey to be neutralized
- Wipe off Israel from the map
- Build nuclear weapon
- Strenghen alliance with Syria
- Develop ties with Russia
- Defeat US troops and US influence in the Middle East
- Convert Palestine as a Hamasistan
- Convert Lebanon as a Hizballahistan
- Found a Shia state in Iraq
- Found a Shia region in Saudi Arabia
- Found an Iranian dominance in Yemen
At the same time 3rd Lebanon War is considered. According to Al- Jazeerah Turkish PM urged Israel not to violate Lebanon airspace.
Al- Jazeerah, "Erdogan slams Israel for violating Lebanese airspace", January 12, 2010.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2010/January/12%20n/Erdogan%20slams%20Israel%20for%20violating%20Lebanese%20airspace,%20bombing%20Gaza.htm
Nasrallah's approach does not include an Israeli attack but to realize a fundamental change in the region. Iran's challenges from Gulf to Eastern Mediterranean object to refine Western extensions in her own periphery.
But the main contradiction for Turkey, a potential Iranian attraction would also damage Turkish benefits. Not only to build a nuclear weapon but also post invasion process in Iraq, would emerge a Turkish-Iranian competition. We can emphasize that, Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq will have intensive economic-political relations with Turkey under US supervisory. However Southern Iraq's position is evaulated with Iran.
Also Turkey's membership to NATO, EU accession process and to be US ally encumber Turkish state some regional perspectives. It does not mean for Turkey to break relations with her neighbors. But main commitments are also determiners of Turkish Foreign Policy.
Meanwhile Turkish approach to Israel seems pesimistic in these days. Even though US aspect provides at least alignment for both of the countries plus moderate Arab regimes.
There is a crossroad for the Middle East. Hamas-Hizballah cooperation is perceived as an Iranian proxy forces' siege to Israel. The gamble for Iran is related her declared strategy: "Wipe off Israel from the map."
It also seems to be prepared a compherensive attack against Israel by Iran and her allies. The probabl situation would endanger pro American Arab regimes and in spite of current government's approach Turkey.
Regional catastrophe risk stays on the table.
AFP, "Nasrallah: War will change region's face", ynetnews.com, January 15, 2010.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3834933,00.html
He means a new Middle East order. As far as to be understood, Nasrallah indicates "pro-Iranian regional hegemony". Iran's regional targets can be evaulated with these outlines:
- Eleminate pro American Sunni Arab regimes
- Make efforts into Turkey to be neutralized
- Wipe off Israel from the map
- Build nuclear weapon
- Strenghen alliance with Syria
- Develop ties with Russia
- Defeat US troops and US influence in the Middle East
- Convert Palestine as a Hamasistan
- Convert Lebanon as a Hizballahistan
- Found a Shia state in Iraq
- Found a Shia region in Saudi Arabia
- Found an Iranian dominance in Yemen
At the same time 3rd Lebanon War is considered. According to Al- Jazeerah Turkish PM urged Israel not to violate Lebanon airspace.
Al- Jazeerah, "Erdogan slams Israel for violating Lebanese airspace", January 12, 2010.
http://www.aljazeerah.info/News/2010/January/12%20n/Erdogan%20slams%20Israel%20for%20violating%20Lebanese%20airspace,%20bombing%20Gaza.htm
Nasrallah's approach does not include an Israeli attack but to realize a fundamental change in the region. Iran's challenges from Gulf to Eastern Mediterranean object to refine Western extensions in her own periphery.
But the main contradiction for Turkey, a potential Iranian attraction would also damage Turkish benefits. Not only to build a nuclear weapon but also post invasion process in Iraq, would emerge a Turkish-Iranian competition. We can emphasize that, Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq will have intensive economic-political relations with Turkey under US supervisory. However Southern Iraq's position is evaulated with Iran.
Also Turkey's membership to NATO, EU accession process and to be US ally encumber Turkish state some regional perspectives. It does not mean for Turkey to break relations with her neighbors. But main commitments are also determiners of Turkish Foreign Policy.
Meanwhile Turkish approach to Israel seems pesimistic in these days. Even though US aspect provides at least alignment for both of the countries plus moderate Arab regimes.
There is a crossroad for the Middle East. Hamas-Hizballah cooperation is perceived as an Iranian proxy forces' siege to Israel. The gamble for Iran is related her declared strategy: "Wipe off Israel from the map."
It also seems to be prepared a compherensive attack against Israel by Iran and her allies. The probabl situation would endanger pro American Arab regimes and in spite of current government's approach Turkey.
Regional catastrophe risk stays on the table.
13 Ocak 2010 Çarşamba
"VALLEY OF THE WOLVES"- ISRAEL
Serie of the Valley of the Wolves become a "decoder" for Turkish viewers since 2003. Serie which is called by her fans as "valley" completed the 7th year and reached to the international format with Valley of the Wolves Iraq. Serie applicated Ergenekon case's PR from 2007 reluctantly. Valley of the Wolves Iraq emphasized regional peoples' fraternity against US invasion in the context of Islamic sensitivities and Ottoman past. In spite of Ottoman approach, Turkishness was considered as a founder element. Meanwhile serie's heroic character Polat Alemdar took the revenge from US commander who was put sacks on Turkish officers heads in Erbil.
Valley of the Wolves Gladio recently tried to show that NATO's Cold War network which was called Gladio in Italy and Turkish branch was named as "counterinsurgency" still continues. İskender Büyük character was evaluated as a composition about Turkish agents situation, why they call themselves as to serve Turkish state and nation but in fact to US and Israel.
Valley of the Wolves' advertorial was done in Valley of the Wolves Iraq. However, serie's producers announced that, the time is Valley of the Wolves Palestine's turn. It seems that, the new film guaranteed viewing records. Why in the last episode of the serie, Polat Alemdar impressed Israeli consulate, killed all Israel's security service agents and escaped his closest guy Memati Baş's son. According the serie's scenario, Israel didn't condemn Turkey because of child snatching. The serie's producers repeated their allegations from Valley of the Wolves Iraq related Israeli doctor's organ trade. According to valley's producers, Israeli media published these allegations.
When Polat Alemdar was killing the last Israeli agent in consulate, agents' blood bounced to Israeli flag. After the serie's last episode, Israel's deputy foreign minister Ayalon summoned Turkish ambassador Oğuz Çelikkol to his room in Knesset. He has invited Israeli press to his room and told them in Hebrew, "look, he is sitting on the lower level from us, on the table only Israeli flag stands and we do not smile". The behaviour was out of diplomatic kindness and was just like a child's attitude. In fact Israeli foreign minister and leader of Israel Beytinu Party, Avigdor Lieberman damages Israel's foreign policy not only related Turkey but also in many events and countries. But this situation is Israel's own problem.
Losing Turkey means "strategic desolation" for Israel. On the other hand, Turkish-Israeli tension started with "one minutes" crisis by Turkish PM Erdoğan. In the first year of the bilateral stress, reached worse point. In October 2009 drill crisis, after serie of Farewell crisis which concern Israeli soldiers as baby killer in Gaza operation deepened the crisis. And the serie was broadcasted in state run TV. (TRT)
Despite crisis, some positive steps were observed since Republic Day of Turkey. (October 29)Israeli trade minister Ben Eliezer attended Turkish embassy's reception in Tel Aviv. He has given messages as frankly. Ben Eliezer visited Turkey in November 2009. In December Turkish president Gül and Israeli president Peres met in Kopenhag during Climate Summit and peres repeated his invitation to Turkish president. After the summit, Turkey offcially invited Israeli defence minister and Labor Party's
leader Ehud Barak. The invitation was scheduled for January 17, 2010. However Valley of the Wolves Ambush broke the process. Aforementioned Ayalon's kindness risked Barak's scheduled visiting. Ayalon considered something about the behaviour, it was not agreed by Turkey. At last, Israeli PM Netenyahu intervened into the process. And he declared that, Ayalon apologised from Turkey. Turkey will evaulate the situation. Withdraw the ambassador from Israel is among the options.
Turkish PM aware of creating popularity in the Middle East with anti Israeli discourse. He is awarded by King Faisal prize by Saudi Arabia. But it must be understood that, foreign policy can be done with benefits not emotions.
Ayalon's inconsiderateness is the fact. But the situation must not be used an opportunity to legitimize of Neo Ottoman policies. Israel is US' strategic partner but also Saudi Arabia is one of the partner of US. It must not be forgotten that, Turkey is member of NATO and ally of USA.
There was an interesting incidence that Lebanon PM Hariri was in Turkey during "lower sofa crisis" Hariri tries to cover Hizballah's political situation why the organization is one of the coalition partner in his cabinet. It means also to keep Iran's nuclear position why Hizballah is Iran sponsored militant organisation. But Hariri's bloc and Hizbalah's bloc were competitors in Lebanon elections. Hariri is a pro western Arab leader and closer with Saudi Arabia.
Series and films can create an illusion for Turkish foreign policy an even anti Israeli discourse could build a popularity for Turkish PM.
On the other hand Jordan, Lebanon (PM), Saudi Arabia and Egypt would not applicate anti Western approaches and not beliavable.
In the conclusion, like Israel and Saudi Arabia samples, each country has a different route to connect with US. Expectation from Turkish policy to get a balance with great powers (include Russia and China) and regional powers (include Israel,Iran, Saudi Arabia). It means to have connections with all parties. Why it is different from Cold War. And also Turkey's alliance to the West is essential with US and EU.
Through Arab countries facilitating to reach US patronage can be attractive with new Ottoman dreams for the current political spectrum in Turkey and can be gained new domestic political steps. Radical movements in Israeli cabinet can serve to the policy. But pro US Arab opening could conclude that, Turkey can be a further actor for Valley of the Wolves Iran.
New films' most important adventure can be realized in Kurdistan Regional Government's plato in Iraq.
Valley of the Wolves Gladio recently tried to show that NATO's Cold War network which was called Gladio in Italy and Turkish branch was named as "counterinsurgency" still continues. İskender Büyük character was evaluated as a composition about Turkish agents situation, why they call themselves as to serve Turkish state and nation but in fact to US and Israel.
Valley of the Wolves' advertorial was done in Valley of the Wolves Iraq. However, serie's producers announced that, the time is Valley of the Wolves Palestine's turn. It seems that, the new film guaranteed viewing records. Why in the last episode of the serie, Polat Alemdar impressed Israeli consulate, killed all Israel's security service agents and escaped his closest guy Memati Baş's son. According the serie's scenario, Israel didn't condemn Turkey because of child snatching. The serie's producers repeated their allegations from Valley of the Wolves Iraq related Israeli doctor's organ trade. According to valley's producers, Israeli media published these allegations.
When Polat Alemdar was killing the last Israeli agent in consulate, agents' blood bounced to Israeli flag. After the serie's last episode, Israel's deputy foreign minister Ayalon summoned Turkish ambassador Oğuz Çelikkol to his room in Knesset. He has invited Israeli press to his room and told them in Hebrew, "look, he is sitting on the lower level from us, on the table only Israeli flag stands and we do not smile". The behaviour was out of diplomatic kindness and was just like a child's attitude. In fact Israeli foreign minister and leader of Israel Beytinu Party, Avigdor Lieberman damages Israel's foreign policy not only related Turkey but also in many events and countries. But this situation is Israel's own problem.
Losing Turkey means "strategic desolation" for Israel. On the other hand, Turkish-Israeli tension started with "one minutes" crisis by Turkish PM Erdoğan. In the first year of the bilateral stress, reached worse point. In October 2009 drill crisis, after serie of Farewell crisis which concern Israeli soldiers as baby killer in Gaza operation deepened the crisis. And the serie was broadcasted in state run TV. (TRT)
Despite crisis, some positive steps were observed since Republic Day of Turkey. (October 29)Israeli trade minister Ben Eliezer attended Turkish embassy's reception in Tel Aviv. He has given messages as frankly. Ben Eliezer visited Turkey in November 2009. In December Turkish president Gül and Israeli president Peres met in Kopenhag during Climate Summit and peres repeated his invitation to Turkish president. After the summit, Turkey offcially invited Israeli defence minister and Labor Party's
leader Ehud Barak. The invitation was scheduled for January 17, 2010. However Valley of the Wolves Ambush broke the process. Aforementioned Ayalon's kindness risked Barak's scheduled visiting. Ayalon considered something about the behaviour, it was not agreed by Turkey. At last, Israeli PM Netenyahu intervened into the process. And he declared that, Ayalon apologised from Turkey. Turkey will evaulate the situation. Withdraw the ambassador from Israel is among the options.
Turkish PM aware of creating popularity in the Middle East with anti Israeli discourse. He is awarded by King Faisal prize by Saudi Arabia. But it must be understood that, foreign policy can be done with benefits not emotions.
Ayalon's inconsiderateness is the fact. But the situation must not be used an opportunity to legitimize of Neo Ottoman policies. Israel is US' strategic partner but also Saudi Arabia is one of the partner of US. It must not be forgotten that, Turkey is member of NATO and ally of USA.
There was an interesting incidence that Lebanon PM Hariri was in Turkey during "lower sofa crisis" Hariri tries to cover Hizballah's political situation why the organization is one of the coalition partner in his cabinet. It means also to keep Iran's nuclear position why Hizballah is Iran sponsored militant organisation. But Hariri's bloc and Hizbalah's bloc were competitors in Lebanon elections. Hariri is a pro western Arab leader and closer with Saudi Arabia.
Series and films can create an illusion for Turkish foreign policy an even anti Israeli discourse could build a popularity for Turkish PM.
On the other hand Jordan, Lebanon (PM), Saudi Arabia and Egypt would not applicate anti Western approaches and not beliavable.
In the conclusion, like Israel and Saudi Arabia samples, each country has a different route to connect with US. Expectation from Turkish policy to get a balance with great powers (include Russia and China) and regional powers (include Israel,Iran, Saudi Arabia). It means to have connections with all parties. Why it is different from Cold War. And also Turkey's alliance to the West is essential with US and EU.
Through Arab countries facilitating to reach US patronage can be attractive with new Ottoman dreams for the current political spectrum in Turkey and can be gained new domestic political steps. Radical movements in Israeli cabinet can serve to the policy. But pro US Arab opening could conclude that, Turkey can be a further actor for Valley of the Wolves Iran.
New films' most important adventure can be realized in Kurdistan Regional Government's plato in Iraq.
7 Ocak 2010 Perşembe
ISRAEL'S "IRON DOME" MISSILE SHIELD
Recently there was a news on Al Jazeera related Israel's "missile shield" designing which was called as "iron dome".
Al Jazeera, "Israel to deploy missile shield", January 7, 2010. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/201017123728755169.html
According to the article, missile shield includes short-range missiles, exercised succesfully and Israel's officials declared the system to be active in mid 2010.
There's the tangible point, Israel feels herself to be blockaded by "enemies". It can be underlined that, there are two "state within states" fight with Israel. After 2007 coup, Hamas captured Gaza Strip unilaterally and created an entity despite Oslo process and Palestine Authority. Between December 2008 and January 2009, Israel realized Operation Cast Lead against Hamas. However, Israel was blamed by the world public opinion to use disproportional force on civilian people. On the other hand, Hamas also gained more advantage. Gaza's people lost the war, but Hamas won. Why, Hamas is feeding from the violence and architect legitimacy on the base of grievance.
The other entity occurred in Lebanon. We mean Hizballah. After 1990 Taif Accord all of the armed groups agreed to break the arms except Hizballah. Iran sponsored militant organisation fougth with Israel in 2006 summer. The war was called as II. Lebanon war. But in fact, the war was not realized by Lebanon. Israel made the war with Hizballah. Like Operation Cast Lead, Israel was criticized to use disproportional use to civilian people. However Hizballah congragulated "the victory" in Beirut streets. Southern Lebanon's innocent villagers lost, but Hizballah won.
It can be observed that, there is a new axis against Israel from southwest and north. Southern Lebanon converted to Hizballahistan and Gaza Strip converted to Hamasistan. Both of the regions are not recognized by international law and international system. So these entities are just like black holes. Hamasistan-Hizballahistan axis are not states and do not have to obey international rules. But Israel has to..
Suppose it. Can we compare Quassam and Katyusha missiles with Arrow II's. But there is one more contradiction. Israel has to defend herself. Israel's "missile shield" solution can be understandable; if it can be functional.
Hamasistan-Hizballahistan axis is supported by Iran. Iran applicates "proxy war" against Israel with using the axis. Iran's nuclear targets are part of her "official policy" which to wipe of Israel from the map. Missile shield can be a short term solution to Iran's proxy forces. So, it can be also evaulated to create "deterrence" for Israel's security and integrity.
Even though, to maintain deterrence, Israel will have to plan "nuclear missile shield" in the long term to prevent nuclear attacks from Iran's mullahs' regime.
Al Jazeera, "Israel to deploy missile shield", January 7, 2010. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/01/201017123728755169.html
According to the article, missile shield includes short-range missiles, exercised succesfully and Israel's officials declared the system to be active in mid 2010.
There's the tangible point, Israel feels herself to be blockaded by "enemies". It can be underlined that, there are two "state within states" fight with Israel. After 2007 coup, Hamas captured Gaza Strip unilaterally and created an entity despite Oslo process and Palestine Authority. Between December 2008 and January 2009, Israel realized Operation Cast Lead against Hamas. However, Israel was blamed by the world public opinion to use disproportional force on civilian people. On the other hand, Hamas also gained more advantage. Gaza's people lost the war, but Hamas won. Why, Hamas is feeding from the violence and architect legitimacy on the base of grievance.
The other entity occurred in Lebanon. We mean Hizballah. After 1990 Taif Accord all of the armed groups agreed to break the arms except Hizballah. Iran sponsored militant organisation fougth with Israel in 2006 summer. The war was called as II. Lebanon war. But in fact, the war was not realized by Lebanon. Israel made the war with Hizballah. Like Operation Cast Lead, Israel was criticized to use disproportional use to civilian people. However Hizballah congragulated "the victory" in Beirut streets. Southern Lebanon's innocent villagers lost, but Hizballah won.
It can be observed that, there is a new axis against Israel from southwest and north. Southern Lebanon converted to Hizballahistan and Gaza Strip converted to Hamasistan. Both of the regions are not recognized by international law and international system. So these entities are just like black holes. Hamasistan-Hizballahistan axis are not states and do not have to obey international rules. But Israel has to..
Suppose it. Can we compare Quassam and Katyusha missiles with Arrow II's. But there is one more contradiction. Israel has to defend herself. Israel's "missile shield" solution can be understandable; if it can be functional.
Hamasistan-Hizballahistan axis is supported by Iran. Iran applicates "proxy war" against Israel with using the axis. Iran's nuclear targets are part of her "official policy" which to wipe of Israel from the map. Missile shield can be a short term solution to Iran's proxy forces. So, it can be also evaulated to create "deterrence" for Israel's security and integrity.
Even though, to maintain deterrence, Israel will have to plan "nuclear missile shield" in the long term to prevent nuclear attacks from Iran's mullahs' regime.
5 Ocak 2010 Salı
YEMEN AS A NEW FRONT...
Last year new elected Obama administration in US underlined two military option on their agenda. First one indicated to withdraw troops from Iraq, the other was to send more combat troops to Afghanistan. Withdrawing troops from Iraq schedule was based on the Statue of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which was signed between US and central Iraq governments. According to SOFA, US troops withrew from Baghdad -Iraq capital- in June 2009. US troops will totaly withraw from Iraq until December 2011.
The other US military approach was about to send more combat troops to Afghanistan. NATO operation which was started after 9/11 by UN Security Council resolution still continues in 2010. And it seems to sustain in an open ended process. In this context, US demanded combat troops from her allies include Turkey. But allies -also Turkey- rejected the offer. Why Taliban captured the social infrastructure not only in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan . Even US called the region as Afpak, it means to accept -de facto- Taliban sovereignty in both countries' depth. Taliban is the projection of Al Queda which is the network terror organisation on the global scale.
We mean Wahabi-Selefi doctrine's network Al Queda; it totaly rejects modernity and modern life style and found new life spheres in the different geoghraphies.
The most significant one is middle Iraq in the post US invasion process. Al Queda manipulated Sunni resistance and converted the territory as a training camp. Al Queda's network has an intensive agenda from Afpak to middle Iraq; as well to Caucasus. Currently it has reached to Yemen with a tangible ground.
Yemen's Al Queda is blamed related to attempt plane attack in US . It was called as Christmas Day attack in US. However there is one more struggle in Yemen between Yemen government and Iran sponsored Shia militants. Saudi Arabia and Yemen are fighting with Shia militants under US supervisory. Iran prolonges Shia influence from Persian Gulf to Gulf of Eden. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is disturbed by Southern Iraq why on the both side of Saudi-Iraq border mostly Shia population lives.
The most interesting point indicates that, even Saudi Arabia and Iran hesitated from Al Queda.
Yemen government also fight with Al Queda and Iran sponsored Shia militants. In this context Yemen is becoming a front against these forces and the country is supported by US-Saudi axis.
In 2010 Yemen is added as a new front after Afghanistan and Iraq.
We will see the outcomes of the effect in this year.
The other US military approach was about to send more combat troops to Afghanistan. NATO operation which was started after 9/11 by UN Security Council resolution still continues in 2010. And it seems to sustain in an open ended process. In this context, US demanded combat troops from her allies include Turkey. But allies -also Turkey- rejected the offer. Why Taliban captured the social infrastructure not only in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan . Even US called the region as Afpak, it means to accept -de facto- Taliban sovereignty in both countries' depth. Taliban is the projection of Al Queda which is the network terror organisation on the global scale.
We mean Wahabi-Selefi doctrine's network Al Queda; it totaly rejects modernity and modern life style and found new life spheres in the different geoghraphies.
The most significant one is middle Iraq in the post US invasion process. Al Queda manipulated Sunni resistance and converted the territory as a training camp. Al Queda's network has an intensive agenda from Afpak to middle Iraq; as well to Caucasus. Currently it has reached to Yemen with a tangible ground.
Yemen's Al Queda is blamed related to attempt plane attack in US . It was called as Christmas Day attack in US. However there is one more struggle in Yemen between Yemen government and Iran sponsored Shia militants. Saudi Arabia and Yemen are fighting with Shia militants under US supervisory. Iran prolonges Shia influence from Persian Gulf to Gulf of Eden. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is disturbed by Southern Iraq why on the both side of Saudi-Iraq border mostly Shia population lives.
The most interesting point indicates that, even Saudi Arabia and Iran hesitated from Al Queda.
Yemen government also fight with Al Queda and Iran sponsored Shia militants. In this context Yemen is becoming a front against these forces and the country is supported by US-Saudi axis.
In 2010 Yemen is added as a new front after Afghanistan and Iraq.
We will see the outcomes of the effect in this year.
2 Ocak 2010 Cumartesi
MODERATE ISLAM: FROM COLD WAR TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER
This paper was presented by me. The detailed information is below.
I wish, 2010 will be a peaceful year for the earth.
Asst. Prof.Dr.Deniz Tansi
Deniz Tansi,“Moderate Islam: From Cold War to New World Order”, Sociology of Islam and Muslim Societies Symposium, Islam and Secularism in Turkey session (No: 83- 10:45-12:15), SOUTHERN SOCIOLOGICAL SOCIETY, April 11, 2008, Richmond/Virginia-USA
ABSTRACT
In Turkish modern history, using of religion for political objectives and opposition to progressive reforms are called ‘irtica’ since legislation form. (1839). After Republic, Islamist opposition became main opposition ground to modern Kemalist reforms. This behavior was also realized in Terakkiperver Cumhuriyet Fırkası (Progressive Republican Party), Şeyh Sait rebellion and Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası (Liberal Republican Party).
In this study, using of religion for political objectives will be analyzed after Second World War in the context of NATO concepts on the base of interim politics. Moderate Islam is evaluated especially with social economic infrastructure relations. We mean industrialization process which was developed rapidly in 1960’s, rising modern Islamic movement through small and middle size entrepreneurship and currently moderate Islam’s integration with global capitalism and Western countries. Also Turkish-Islam Synthesis headline is considered as a tool of US’ containment policy (Green Belt) to Soviet Union. Therefore US approach reflected to Turkish politics on the base of Turkish-Islam Synthesis and it is reverted to Moderate Islam in post cold war era.
In this context Turkey is used as an exercise area for moderate Islam after 9/11 by US, and we criticize this trend, why to underline secular, democratic Turkey Republic’s existence (Kemalist model) for a peaceful Middle East.
This study tries to indicate Turkish application of Moderate Islam’s domestic and global situation in the New World Order, its relations with pro-American Sunni axis in the region and effects to the Middle East.
TURKISH-ISLAM SYNTHESIS
WHICH WAS FORMULATED DURING THE COLD WAR
Turkey has adopted a tangible approach towards the blocks in the aftermath of the Second World War during which she performed a neutral attitude towards the fighting parties. Turkey’s Western choice is explained in connection with the Soviet demands which included bases on Straits as well as the territory of Kars and Ardahan provinces. The indicated Soviet demands could not be pronounced clearly. However, this perception determined Turkish domestic and foreign policy’s axis during the Cold War. USA enlarged her national security strategy to include Turkey and Greece with Truman Doctrine in 1947, therefore inter-block competition expanded to the Middle East geography. The USA deployed both of the countries to her own defending concept at once, since the Greek Civil War accelerated the process. USA concerned Greek Civil War may end up with a communist victory which would effect Greece’s choices towards Eastern block, facilitating the Soviet expansion to the Middle East, Mediterranean and Northern Africa. In this context, Turkey and Greece were accepted as members of NATO in 1952. NATO was founded in 1949. Turkey’s existence in NATO was perceived through its two main specialties. First of all, Turkey had the longest land border with the Soviet Union. Second, Turkey was the only member of NATO with a mostly Muslim population. These two items were formed in the context of the anticommunism axis with nationalism and religious fundamentalism. Provocation of the Turkic and Muslim communities in the Soviet Union and the strengthening of Turkish defense as a member of NATO were related with this context. The axis was shaped as Turkish-Islam Synthesis in Turkish domestic policy.
Tariqat of the Nur was protected since Democratic Party (DP) governments during the multi-party era. Tariqat of Nur was founded by Said-i Nursi whose real name was Said-i Kürdi. The word Nur means “holy light” in Arabic religious literature. From 1946 Imam-Hatip high schools were founded which trained religious men who leads prayers in Muslim mosques. The other point was that, according to Islam women can not serve and lead the community in the mosques. Why, did these schools accept girls as students ?
At the same period of time Komünizmle Mücadele Dernekleri (Organizations of Struggle Against Communism) were established. In the Organizations of Struggle Against Communism, nationalism which was related to anticommunism was provoked. Rightist ruling parties employed unprogressive (irtica) staff in bureaucracy and religious propaganda. The May 27, 1960 military coup administration ceased these developments, however Justice Party (AP) governments restarted to pursue the process of supporting them. They even extended the process by including the Tariqat of Süleymancılık and the others since the middle of 1960’s. Imam Hatip schools were launched as the pioneers of ‘moral development’ and religious education was provoked instead of abiding by the Educational Union Code and national-secular education. Another attribution of Said-i Kürdi was his sympathy to Kurdish movement. Şeyh Sait rebellion (1925) was analyzed in Uğur Mumcu’s book in the name of Kurdish-Islam Rebellion. Indeed, the fundamentalist movement legitimates Kurdish action with religious references. Kurdish political spectrum is more about Sunni religious structure than leftist approach. Currently Barzani movement has strong structural relations with the tariqat of Nakşibendilik. 1960’s were the starting point of the reactions to the leftist politics. In Turkey, some of the nationalist and religious political groups were built in the context of NATO axis, in opposition to the leftist movements. For instance, we can recall and underline the ‘Bloody Sunday’ in 1969. Religious groups attacked the leftist groups pretexting that they were criticizing NATO. The event took place in Taksim Square in İstanbul. The 1960s were hallmarked by industrialization perspective on the planned development strategy. According to Ahmet Yücekök, this new process fragmented the Great Right Coalition in the structure of AP. Liberal grand bourgeoisie preferred AP, Necmettin Erbakan leaded Milli Görüş (means National Opinion, but nation indicates Islamic nation) action on the axis of small and middle size entrepreneurs which resisted to the liberal capitalist integration to the West. Economic benefits were legitimized with religious discourse. Erbakan was the chairman of the Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey (TOBB). TOBB represents the small and medium size enterprises. Milli Görüş (the National Opinion) criticized Justice Party (AP) with he slogans of “Mason, Comprador Bourgeoisie”. Nationalist Action Party (MHP) was built in Central Anatolia especially among the artisans since they were dissatisfied by the industrial development. MHP used the anticommunist-nationalist discourse in line with a paramilitary structure. But the fragmentation of Grand Right Coalition would not prevent the formation of the Nationalist Front (MC) coalition governments against democratic leftist Republican People’s Party (CHP) and other leftist groups. MC was formed with the idea of anticommunism. MC was a nationalist front on the axis of NATO. Erbakan’s National Salvation Party (MSP) was deployed in different coalition governments during 1970’s with CHP and MC (which included AP, MSP, MHP and the other small parties). But MSP continued to deploy religious partisan staff into the establishment and founded new Imam Hatip schools by using the cabinet power. MSP has gained power on the contrary to its vote proportion. September 12, 1980 military coup banned all of the political parties’ and NGO’s actions. Tariqats were deployed instead of the democratic organizations, capturing all living areas. Military Administration used tariqats against the leftist political spectrum. During the military administration era, MSP had used this process despite their situation in the courts and prisons. The other political groups and parties were consolidated but MSP and tariqats kept their position. Military administration protected religious groups against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. USA built the Green Belt in line with its containment policy around Soviet Union and Turkey was evaluated in this axis. Green Belt symbolized the pro-American Moderate Islam regimes against the Soviets. Iran Islamic Revolution had changed balance in the Middle East. Shah had to go abroad and Houmeyni founded the Islamic Republic with mullahs. Iran withdrew from pro Western Middle East organization which was called CENTO. Therefore, USA lost a castle in the region. Military administration restored Turkey in the US axis and adapted the Green Belt project into domestic politics by introducing Turkish-Islam Synthesis which meant nationalist and religious axis against communism. Synthesis became the formal ideology in this era.
After Cold War, Turkey lived low intensive conflict against the PKK which was structured on the basis of ethnic terror. Process included the years between 1984 and 1999. Unfortunately, PKK terror started in 2004 again. In 1992, National Security Council changed National Security Politics Paper. Separatism was accepted as the major threat to Turkey instead of communism. In the date of February 28, 1997, Council added reactionism (unprogressive ideology) which was called irtica in Turkish politics indicating religious fundamentalism. Cold War ended with the 1992 and 1997 decisions for Turkey. However, after February 28, 1997, establishment understood that, religious fundamentalism which was provoked in the axis of NATO against communism, captured bureaucracy, education, politics and many other living areas. Religious politics became a determiner. Center right parties used religious groups for their benefits. But currently they are marginalized in the structure of religious parties, namely the Justice and Development Party (AKP) which is called “the White Party” by its members and fans.
THE RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT BOURGEOISIFIES: MODERATE ISLAM
In spite of the fact that the “National Opinion” politics had flourished in the context of petit and middle-sized bourgeoisie, the Islamic capital flaws began to grow larger as a result of the encouragement of MC governments and the sphere of maneuver they gained during the September, 12 era. While Turkey was shifting its economic model from import substitution to market economy, the aforementioned change was legitimized through the Turkish Islam synthesis which was supported by the September 12 administration and the subsequent ANAP governments, exploiting the nationalist and religious sentiments of the masses. The Islamic capitalists which are known as “Anatolian Tigers” globalized in line with the globalization of the Turkish economy. Within this framework, they learned foreign languages, got familiar to information technologies, and began to visit and get to know not only the Arab states but also the US and European states as a part of their jobs although their religious sensitivities continued in their private lives. They became familiar with concepts such as the stock market, global movements of capital, multi-national companies, IMF, and the EU just in line with the advances of Turkey. In the meantime, some tariqats organized themselves in education, insurance and media sectors and preferred to develop organic cooperation with the US. They received high consideration as much to come together with the Pope and other religious leaders. The dramatic enrichment of tariqat leaders and the transformation of tariqats into economic and political power holders have traumatized the sensible segments of the Turkish society in the post-Cold War context, since the disappearance of inter-block struggle uncovered the religious politics. As a result of the aforementioned bourgeoisification and globalization process, the second generation of Milli Görüş stood against the traditionalist elite of the party and started the internal struggle in Refah Partisi- (Welfare Party). After the closure of Fazilet Partisi (Virtue Party) the new generation founded AKP while the traditionalist Saadet Partisi (Felicity Party) held onto the Milli Görüş line.
AKP has paid special attention to the relations with the USA and the EU as well as the formulation of its policies in harmony with IMF since it came to power in 2002. The demands of the globalizing Islamic Anatolian capital are behind these developments. At this point, the government is contentious with the fundamental institutions of the Republic.
CONCLUSION
The US is conceiving a Sunni axis under her tutelage. The moderate Islamic regimes which were a part of the Containment policy against the Soviets since 1950s became a doctrine with the Green Belt project in late 1970s and 1980s. In this context, an Islamic project is developed according to the demands of globalization. Turkey’s structure which is based on secular republic and its founding elite is battered. A global understanding of Islam based on ethnicity is imported and indoctrinated in order to replace the simple-hearted Anatolian Islam tradition.
The Moderate Islam scenario which was prepared in the NATO kitchen since 1950s has constituted the main ground for the decomposition (localization) and globalization of the “Greater Middle East” in the Post-Cold War period.
While the Moderate Islam was developed in a pro-American axis, the climate of distrust which is set forth by a number of fundamentalist organizations in the context of asymmetric war -since they acquired a wide ground of maneuver after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan- should be analyzed. On this portrayed surface, it is inevitable that moderate Islam converts into radical Islam just like the incident of Pakistan. The policies of Evren in Turkey and Ul Hak in Pakistan tried to make the society more religious and substitute the democratic mass organizations and political parties with tariqats. By this means, moderate Islam advanced to establish an “ultimate regime of truth” -to make a Gramscian analysis. While the superstructure was acquired in terms of education, politics and bureaucracy, a new social texture was also introduced. At this point, history, daily life and values are almost redefined.
As mentioned in Neuman’s theory of “spiral of silence”, the fundamental values begin to be perceived as common values.
While the Vahabi-Selefi interpretation declared war on modernity, the moderate Islam continued its takeover operation excluding modernity and giving priority to modernization by taking advantage of loopholes.
Moderate Islam project is against Kemalism in terms of modernity. As far as Turkey is concerned, the unity of liberal segments with moderate Islam in opposition of authoritativeness has ended since the paradigm of moderate Islam captures all the grounds of society and creates its own elite and bourgeois, turning a deaf ear to the criticisms of the rest of the society.
This process results in a new and authoritative understanding of politics and society. On a particular ground, ethnic and religious distinctions trigger decomposition with the impact of globalization, while moderate Islam negates the theory of democracy through democratic tools. Even by receiving the support of groups which claim to defend democracy…
REFERENCE
BOOKS:
Gaddis, John Lewis., Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy ,New York: Oxford Univ. Press ,1982, p.352-353.
Mumcu. Uğur. Kürt-İslam Ayaklanması, Um:ag Yayınları, Ankara, 1997.
Neumann, Elisabeth Noelle. The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion - Our Social Skin, 1993 University of Chicago Press.
Yücekök, Ahmet. Dinin Siyasallaşması Din-Devlet İlişkilerinde Türkiye Deneyimi
Afa Yayınları, Tüses Türkiye Sosyal Ekonomik Siyasal Araştırmalar Vakfı, İstanbul, 1997.
Yücekök, Ahmet. Türkiye’de Örgütlenmiş Dinin Sosyolojik Tabanı, A.Ü. SBF Yayınları, Ankara, 1971.
ARTICLES:
Bieler, Andreas and Morton Adam David. “A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations”, Capital & Class, Spring 2004, Issue 82, p.90-91.
Fuller, Graham. “Turkey’s Strategic Model: Myhts and Realities”, The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2004, p.53.
Hürriyet, “Kanlı Pazar”, February 17, 1969, p.1.
Jablonsky, David . “The State of the National Security State”, Parameters , Winter, 2002-2003, p.6, USA.
I wish, 2010 will be a peaceful year for the earth.
Asst. Prof.Dr.Deniz Tansi
Deniz Tansi,“Moderate Islam: From Cold War to New World Order”, Sociology of Islam and Muslim Societies Symposium, Islam and Secularism in Turkey session (No: 83- 10:45-12:15), SOUTHERN SOCIOLOGICAL SOCIETY, April 11, 2008, Richmond/Virginia-USA
ABSTRACT
In Turkish modern history, using of religion for political objectives and opposition to progressive reforms are called ‘irtica’ since legislation form. (1839). After Republic, Islamist opposition became main opposition ground to modern Kemalist reforms. This behavior was also realized in Terakkiperver Cumhuriyet Fırkası (Progressive Republican Party), Şeyh Sait rebellion and Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası (Liberal Republican Party).
In this study, using of religion for political objectives will be analyzed after Second World War in the context of NATO concepts on the base of interim politics. Moderate Islam is evaluated especially with social economic infrastructure relations. We mean industrialization process which was developed rapidly in 1960’s, rising modern Islamic movement through small and middle size entrepreneurship and currently moderate Islam’s integration with global capitalism and Western countries. Also Turkish-Islam Synthesis headline is considered as a tool of US’ containment policy (Green Belt) to Soviet Union. Therefore US approach reflected to Turkish politics on the base of Turkish-Islam Synthesis and it is reverted to Moderate Islam in post cold war era.
In this context Turkey is used as an exercise area for moderate Islam after 9/11 by US, and we criticize this trend, why to underline secular, democratic Turkey Republic’s existence (Kemalist model) for a peaceful Middle East.
This study tries to indicate Turkish application of Moderate Islam’s domestic and global situation in the New World Order, its relations with pro-American Sunni axis in the region and effects to the Middle East.
TURKISH-ISLAM SYNTHESIS
WHICH WAS FORMULATED DURING THE COLD WAR
Turkey has adopted a tangible approach towards the blocks in the aftermath of the Second World War during which she performed a neutral attitude towards the fighting parties. Turkey’s Western choice is explained in connection with the Soviet demands which included bases on Straits as well as the territory of Kars and Ardahan provinces. The indicated Soviet demands could not be pronounced clearly. However, this perception determined Turkish domestic and foreign policy’s axis during the Cold War. USA enlarged her national security strategy to include Turkey and Greece with Truman Doctrine in 1947, therefore inter-block competition expanded to the Middle East geography. The USA deployed both of the countries to her own defending concept at once, since the Greek Civil War accelerated the process. USA concerned Greek Civil War may end up with a communist victory which would effect Greece’s choices towards Eastern block, facilitating the Soviet expansion to the Middle East, Mediterranean and Northern Africa. In this context, Turkey and Greece were accepted as members of NATO in 1952. NATO was founded in 1949. Turkey’s existence in NATO was perceived through its two main specialties. First of all, Turkey had the longest land border with the Soviet Union. Second, Turkey was the only member of NATO with a mostly Muslim population. These two items were formed in the context of the anticommunism axis with nationalism and religious fundamentalism. Provocation of the Turkic and Muslim communities in the Soviet Union and the strengthening of Turkish defense as a member of NATO were related with this context. The axis was shaped as Turkish-Islam Synthesis in Turkish domestic policy.
Tariqat of the Nur was protected since Democratic Party (DP) governments during the multi-party era. Tariqat of Nur was founded by Said-i Nursi whose real name was Said-i Kürdi. The word Nur means “holy light” in Arabic religious literature. From 1946 Imam-Hatip high schools were founded which trained religious men who leads prayers in Muslim mosques. The other point was that, according to Islam women can not serve and lead the community in the mosques. Why, did these schools accept girls as students ?
At the same period of time Komünizmle Mücadele Dernekleri (Organizations of Struggle Against Communism) were established. In the Organizations of Struggle Against Communism, nationalism which was related to anticommunism was provoked. Rightist ruling parties employed unprogressive (irtica) staff in bureaucracy and religious propaganda. The May 27, 1960 military coup administration ceased these developments, however Justice Party (AP) governments restarted to pursue the process of supporting them. They even extended the process by including the Tariqat of Süleymancılık and the others since the middle of 1960’s. Imam Hatip schools were launched as the pioneers of ‘moral development’ and religious education was provoked instead of abiding by the Educational Union Code and national-secular education. Another attribution of Said-i Kürdi was his sympathy to Kurdish movement. Şeyh Sait rebellion (1925) was analyzed in Uğur Mumcu’s book in the name of Kurdish-Islam Rebellion. Indeed, the fundamentalist movement legitimates Kurdish action with religious references. Kurdish political spectrum is more about Sunni religious structure than leftist approach. Currently Barzani movement has strong structural relations with the tariqat of Nakşibendilik. 1960’s were the starting point of the reactions to the leftist politics. In Turkey, some of the nationalist and religious political groups were built in the context of NATO axis, in opposition to the leftist movements. For instance, we can recall and underline the ‘Bloody Sunday’ in 1969. Religious groups attacked the leftist groups pretexting that they were criticizing NATO. The event took place in Taksim Square in İstanbul. The 1960s were hallmarked by industrialization perspective on the planned development strategy. According to Ahmet Yücekök, this new process fragmented the Great Right Coalition in the structure of AP. Liberal grand bourgeoisie preferred AP, Necmettin Erbakan leaded Milli Görüş (means National Opinion, but nation indicates Islamic nation) action on the axis of small and middle size entrepreneurs which resisted to the liberal capitalist integration to the West. Economic benefits were legitimized with religious discourse. Erbakan was the chairman of the Union of Chambers and Commodity Exchanges of Turkey (TOBB). TOBB represents the small and medium size enterprises. Milli Görüş (the National Opinion) criticized Justice Party (AP) with he slogans of “Mason, Comprador Bourgeoisie”. Nationalist Action Party (MHP) was built in Central Anatolia especially among the artisans since they were dissatisfied by the industrial development. MHP used the anticommunist-nationalist discourse in line with a paramilitary structure. But the fragmentation of Grand Right Coalition would not prevent the formation of the Nationalist Front (MC) coalition governments against democratic leftist Republican People’s Party (CHP) and other leftist groups. MC was formed with the idea of anticommunism. MC was a nationalist front on the axis of NATO. Erbakan’s National Salvation Party (MSP) was deployed in different coalition governments during 1970’s with CHP and MC (which included AP, MSP, MHP and the other small parties). But MSP continued to deploy religious partisan staff into the establishment and founded new Imam Hatip schools by using the cabinet power. MSP has gained power on the contrary to its vote proportion. September 12, 1980 military coup banned all of the political parties’ and NGO’s actions. Tariqats were deployed instead of the democratic organizations, capturing all living areas. Military Administration used tariqats against the leftist political spectrum. During the military administration era, MSP had used this process despite their situation in the courts and prisons. The other political groups and parties were consolidated but MSP and tariqats kept their position. Military administration protected religious groups against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. USA built the Green Belt in line with its containment policy around Soviet Union and Turkey was evaluated in this axis. Green Belt symbolized the pro-American Moderate Islam regimes against the Soviets. Iran Islamic Revolution had changed balance in the Middle East. Shah had to go abroad and Houmeyni founded the Islamic Republic with mullahs. Iran withdrew from pro Western Middle East organization which was called CENTO. Therefore, USA lost a castle in the region. Military administration restored Turkey in the US axis and adapted the Green Belt project into domestic politics by introducing Turkish-Islam Synthesis which meant nationalist and religious axis against communism. Synthesis became the formal ideology in this era.
After Cold War, Turkey lived low intensive conflict against the PKK which was structured on the basis of ethnic terror. Process included the years between 1984 and 1999. Unfortunately, PKK terror started in 2004 again. In 1992, National Security Council changed National Security Politics Paper. Separatism was accepted as the major threat to Turkey instead of communism. In the date of February 28, 1997, Council added reactionism (unprogressive ideology) which was called irtica in Turkish politics indicating religious fundamentalism. Cold War ended with the 1992 and 1997 decisions for Turkey. However, after February 28, 1997, establishment understood that, religious fundamentalism which was provoked in the axis of NATO against communism, captured bureaucracy, education, politics and many other living areas. Religious politics became a determiner. Center right parties used religious groups for their benefits. But currently they are marginalized in the structure of religious parties, namely the Justice and Development Party (AKP) which is called “the White Party” by its members and fans.
THE RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT BOURGEOISIFIES: MODERATE ISLAM
In spite of the fact that the “National Opinion” politics had flourished in the context of petit and middle-sized bourgeoisie, the Islamic capital flaws began to grow larger as a result of the encouragement of MC governments and the sphere of maneuver they gained during the September, 12 era. While Turkey was shifting its economic model from import substitution to market economy, the aforementioned change was legitimized through the Turkish Islam synthesis which was supported by the September 12 administration and the subsequent ANAP governments, exploiting the nationalist and religious sentiments of the masses. The Islamic capitalists which are known as “Anatolian Tigers” globalized in line with the globalization of the Turkish economy. Within this framework, they learned foreign languages, got familiar to information technologies, and began to visit and get to know not only the Arab states but also the US and European states as a part of their jobs although their religious sensitivities continued in their private lives. They became familiar with concepts such as the stock market, global movements of capital, multi-national companies, IMF, and the EU just in line with the advances of Turkey. In the meantime, some tariqats organized themselves in education, insurance and media sectors and preferred to develop organic cooperation with the US. They received high consideration as much to come together with the Pope and other religious leaders. The dramatic enrichment of tariqat leaders and the transformation of tariqats into economic and political power holders have traumatized the sensible segments of the Turkish society in the post-Cold War context, since the disappearance of inter-block struggle uncovered the religious politics. As a result of the aforementioned bourgeoisification and globalization process, the second generation of Milli Görüş stood against the traditionalist elite of the party and started the internal struggle in Refah Partisi- (Welfare Party). After the closure of Fazilet Partisi (Virtue Party) the new generation founded AKP while the traditionalist Saadet Partisi (Felicity Party) held onto the Milli Görüş line.
AKP has paid special attention to the relations with the USA and the EU as well as the formulation of its policies in harmony with IMF since it came to power in 2002. The demands of the globalizing Islamic Anatolian capital are behind these developments. At this point, the government is contentious with the fundamental institutions of the Republic.
CONCLUSION
The US is conceiving a Sunni axis under her tutelage. The moderate Islamic regimes which were a part of the Containment policy against the Soviets since 1950s became a doctrine with the Green Belt project in late 1970s and 1980s. In this context, an Islamic project is developed according to the demands of globalization. Turkey’s structure which is based on secular republic and its founding elite is battered. A global understanding of Islam based on ethnicity is imported and indoctrinated in order to replace the simple-hearted Anatolian Islam tradition.
The Moderate Islam scenario which was prepared in the NATO kitchen since 1950s has constituted the main ground for the decomposition (localization) and globalization of the “Greater Middle East” in the Post-Cold War period.
While the Moderate Islam was developed in a pro-American axis, the climate of distrust which is set forth by a number of fundamentalist organizations in the context of asymmetric war -since they acquired a wide ground of maneuver after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan- should be analyzed. On this portrayed surface, it is inevitable that moderate Islam converts into radical Islam just like the incident of Pakistan. The policies of Evren in Turkey and Ul Hak in Pakistan tried to make the society more religious and substitute the democratic mass organizations and political parties with tariqats. By this means, moderate Islam advanced to establish an “ultimate regime of truth” -to make a Gramscian analysis. While the superstructure was acquired in terms of education, politics and bureaucracy, a new social texture was also introduced. At this point, history, daily life and values are almost redefined.
As mentioned in Neuman’s theory of “spiral of silence”, the fundamental values begin to be perceived as common values.
While the Vahabi-Selefi interpretation declared war on modernity, the moderate Islam continued its takeover operation excluding modernity and giving priority to modernization by taking advantage of loopholes.
Moderate Islam project is against Kemalism in terms of modernity. As far as Turkey is concerned, the unity of liberal segments with moderate Islam in opposition of authoritativeness has ended since the paradigm of moderate Islam captures all the grounds of society and creates its own elite and bourgeois, turning a deaf ear to the criticisms of the rest of the society.
This process results in a new and authoritative understanding of politics and society. On a particular ground, ethnic and religious distinctions trigger decomposition with the impact of globalization, while moderate Islam negates the theory of democracy through democratic tools. Even by receiving the support of groups which claim to defend democracy…
REFERENCE
BOOKS:
Gaddis, John Lewis., Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy ,New York: Oxford Univ. Press ,1982, p.352-353.
Mumcu. Uğur. Kürt-İslam Ayaklanması, Um:ag Yayınları, Ankara, 1997.
Neumann, Elisabeth Noelle. The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion - Our Social Skin, 1993 University of Chicago Press.
Yücekök, Ahmet. Dinin Siyasallaşması Din-Devlet İlişkilerinde Türkiye Deneyimi
Afa Yayınları, Tüses Türkiye Sosyal Ekonomik Siyasal Araştırmalar Vakfı, İstanbul, 1997.
Yücekök, Ahmet. Türkiye’de Örgütlenmiş Dinin Sosyolojik Tabanı, A.Ü. SBF Yayınları, Ankara, 1971.
ARTICLES:
Bieler, Andreas and Morton Adam David. “A critical theory route to hegemony, world order and historical change: neo-Gramscian perspectives in International Relations”, Capital & Class, Spring 2004, Issue 82, p.90-91.
Fuller, Graham. “Turkey’s Strategic Model: Myhts and Realities”, The Washington Quarterly, Summer 2004, p.53.
Hürriyet, “Kanlı Pazar”, February 17, 1969, p.1.
Jablonsky, David . “The State of the National Security State”, Parameters , Winter, 2002-2003, p.6, USA.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)
