The Forum > General Discussion > Four questions Turks ask Thomas Friedman
Four questions Turks ask Thomas Friedman
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 21 June 2010 1:35:54 PM
| |
A few additional comments that I could not get into the 350 word limit.
(1) Turkey is not an "oildom" like Iran or Saudi Arabia. Nor can it dig riches out of the ground like Australia. This is a country that depends on the prowess of its entrepreneurs and its engineers and scientists. That makes it a very different proposition to most Middle-Eastern Muslim countries. (2) The foundation for Turkey's prosperity was laid by the previous administration. However the AKP Government that took office in 2001 has until now continued and even expanded on the previous administration's pro-business policies. (3) It is precisely the entrepreneurial and technological classes that Turkey needs that seem to be the most nervous about creeping Islamisation (4) The high degree of self-censorship in the Turkish media make it hard to know what is happening beneath the surface. In fairness, this is not new in Turkey. Part of the reason for the AKP's success is the fact that only an Islamist party could take on the previous authoritarian administration. Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 21 June 2010 2:52:02 PM
| |
Dear stevenlmeyer,
You asked; --Will Turkey's rise continue? Or will it go down the Islamist path? --A decade from now will crowds in Istanbul be shouting "death to the dictator" just as they did in Tehran a few months ago? The answer must surely be predicated to a large degree on your last comment i.e. whether or not “the US has the sense to stay out of it.” From Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival: “The crucial point was expressed with unusual vulgarity by Pentagon planner Paul Wolfowitz. Like others across the spectrum, he berated the Turkish government for its misbehavior, but went on as well to condemn the military. Wolfowitz of course knows that the military is just behind the scenes in Turkish democracy. But “for whatever reason, they did not play the strong leadership role that we would have expected,” Wolfowitz said, condemning the military for its weakness in permitting the government to honor near-unanimous public opinion. Turkey must therefore step up and say “We made a mistake. Let’s figure out how we can be as helpful as possible to the Americans,” thus demonstrating their understanding of democracy." If I was an Iranian I would probably be shouting “death to the dictator” with the best of them. In 1953 the US intelligence services engineer a coup to depose the democratically elected Prime Minister Muhammad Mussadeq, a leading exponent of nationalising the oil industry. They replace him with a dictator, the Shah whose vicious secret police they train and who is then overthrown by a revolution which installs a theocracy. Yup I'd be cranky as well. So if the Yanks and the Israelis can keep their hands off Turkey then there is hope for the future, if not then who knows. Posted by csteele, Monday, 21 June 2010 9:53:34 PM
| |
csteele
I put it to you that the biggest problem facing the Turks today is the absence of a truly free media and the difficulty Turks encounter when they try to discuss vital national issues openly. Once the entrepreneurs and technologists get spooked all bets are off.It does not need any intervention by the Americans. Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 21 June 2010 10:34:17 PM
| |
Dear stevenlmeyer,
You will have to tell me how Singapore manages to do so well then. In Freedomhouse's Freedom of the Press World Rankings Turkey is rated at 104th while Singapore is at 151st in the world. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=1 Indeed Turkey has managed to climb 6 places from the year before and to be fair Singapore has moved up 4. Australia on the other hand has managed to drop 3 places from 35th to 38th during the same period. Compare us to New Zealand which sits at 12th. Perhaps it is your new homeland that needs some attention, or is the elephant in the room your view of Islam? Posted by csteele, Monday, 21 June 2010 11:34:33 PM
| |
csteele,
Singapore is a city state. You cannot compare a geographically compact city to a big sprawling country of close to 80 million people. Really we could talk about Singapore Inc. It is more like a very well run multinational company that a country. Australia, as I was careful to note in my first post, is primarily a raw materials exporter. It does not depend on a technological or entrepreneurial class in the same way that Turkey does. (More's the pity!) Also Australia is in any case a lot more free than Turkey. The question you should be asking yourself is not what is the elephant in my room, but what could be the elephant in the room of the entrepreneurs, scientists and engineers who made Turkey the powerhouse it has become. It is they who MAY be getting spooked by creeping Islamism. You mentioned the Shah. I am old enough to remember him. He was a nasty piece of work. But during his rule an entrepreneurial class sprung up in Iran. Perhaps without the Islamic revolution Iran could have become an economic powerhouse like Turkey instead of a pathetic little dictatorship. Interestingly a number of Iranians fled to South Africa after the Islamic Revolution which is where I met them. Most moved on to the US and Germany which are now reaping the benefits of their enterprise. Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 22 June 2010 8:37:39 AM
| |
The problems with Turkey is that the people who want to support "Ataturks" ideas, inhabit the densely populated population centers, but they are being "outbred" if you will by the population from the sparsely populated agricultural areas, who never really did support Ataturks ideals (non-secular schooling, western approaches, etc.).
But why EXACTLY does America NEED Turkey AT ALL? Since the removal of the NIKES, the only real reason the US needed Turkey was Incirlik Airforce Base (which the US Built). The US has built two airstrips essentially the same size in Northern Iraq (Autonomous Province of Kurdistan), which Turkey is attacking in conjunction with their Ally Iran (with no regard for civilian casualties). Erdogan, the man was arrested for Unconstitutional conduct, has decided, that given Turkey's refusal (in its attempt to enter the EU due to its appalling human rights record) that he is going to try and take back control of the "Empire"... The fact the UN let Turkey "Take" the enriched material from its ally Iran, is scary as hell. That material will be back in Iran in no time. Turkey, Iran & Syria are now openly working together (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmffgIqlAYA, the actors do look right don't they? Ahbanejiad looks like slimy and Assad has the correct stiff, stupid stance), so I ask again, why does the USA "NEED" Turkey AT ALL? The US has a very good ally in the Region (an oil rich one too) in Kurdistan, which it has held off recognising as an independent Country in order not to offend the Turks... Please, let the US wake up in time and realise that its former ally is playing games with its worst enemy in the region, and then let the US drop them like the rather heavy weight around their neck that they represent (Turkey will struggle to keep their war fighting machines in working order, the spares are sourced from Israel). Posted by Custard, Tuesday, 22 June 2010 9:16:01 AM
| |
Custard,
I don't think the US "needs" Turkey. Nor does it need "Kurdistan", Iraq or any other country in the region. What the US needs to do is free itself from reliance on oil imported from really awful countries. It certainly has the technological capability to do it. When people tell me that all alternatives are too expensive compared to Middle-Eastern or Venezuelan oil I reply: --Have you factored in the cost of the Iraq war? --Have you factored in the factored in the risk posed by those long supply lines. Strategically they are your Achilles heel? All those tankers are a plum target for China's rapidly growing submarine force in the event of conflict. --Have you factored in the cost of the navy that is required to keep those long supply lines secure? --Have you taken account of the fact that you are financing some of the worst most aggressive regimes in the world? --Have you taken into account that Iran probably could not afford nukes if it weren't for your oil-guzzling ways keeping the price so high? Once you take those costs into account, alternatives look cheap. Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 22 June 2010 9:39:45 AM
| |
Ironically on the note of US intervention csteele, if ever a conflict divided Turkey into the kemalist and Islamist camps, guess which side the US would actually support?
(hint- slogans may include 'militant atheist dictators suppressing the moderate "Moslem" people who want freedom). The deal is, the secular side is the one with the giant army, educated professional middle-class citizens, money, prime real-estate, higher-level industry etc that Europe would be eyeing, the other side however would woo the Islamic world that the Americans want so bad- so screwing Europe and getting a browny point from their oil buddies is a pure win situation! Turkey would ultimately do fairly well on its own- it would share the predicament of a European country exporting to the middle east, but a unique position of also exporting to Europe (and doing a lot of importing). On the issue of secularism, it's not looking so hot for the secular people- who seem to be getting displaced by the 'bible belt' of Anatolia in all ways (including getting outvoted). My only hope is that they DO separate and the US stays out of it (or, alternatively, the EU steps in and stops the US). As it is, it's a union where secularism must be enforced by undemocratic law to protect the secular peoples from the rest- at the expense of religious expression of the majority- not to mention an aggressive Kurdish separatist movement- it would probably be practically better for all three to split, and no longer have to worry about the interference of the other. Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 22 June 2010 10:17:53 AM
| |
A hint of where Erdogan’s ambitions lie may be found by going to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkic_languages “The Turkic languages constitute a language family of some thirty languages, spoken by Turkic peoples across a vast area from Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean to Siberia and Western China, and are considered to be part of the proposed Altaic language family.[1][2] Turkic languages are spoken by some 165 [3] up to 180 million people as a native language;[4] and the total number of Turkic speakers is over 200 million, including speakers as a second language. The Turkic language with the greatest number of speakers is Turkish proper, or Anatolian [and Balkan] Turkish, the speakers of which account for about 40% of all Turkic speakers.[2] Characteristic features of Turkish, such as vowel harmony, agglutination, and lack of grammatical gender, are universal within the Turkic family and the Altaic languages.[2] There is also a high degree of mutual intelligibility between the various Oghuz languages, which include Turkish, Azerbaijani, Turkmen, Qashqai, Gagauz, and Balkan Gagauz Turkish.” Go to that site and look at the map. The region is in ferment. An expanding, prosperous Turkey can compete with the US, China and Russia for influence in the region. It has an ethnic and religious connection with those peoples that the US, China and Russia don’t have. Posted by david f, Tuesday, 22 June 2010 10:39:13 AM
| |
Here is a link to a piece in he Guardian newspaper on Turkey:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/21/turkey-zero-problems-policy?showallcomments=true#start-of-comments I don't think anyone would call the Guardian a "pro-Israel" or "pro-American" publication. QUOTES Erdogan's fierce condemnation of the killing on Saturday of 11 soldiers by Kurdistan Workers party (PKK) fighters possibly reflected frustration that Ankara's pursuit of non-military solutions has produced little that is concrete in the eight years since his Justice and Development party (AKP) first came to power. "Today we will not make the traitors happy," Erdogan said during a visit to Van. "We will defend this ground heroically ... "I say here very clearly, they will not win. They will gain nothing. They will melt away in their own darkness ... they will drown in their own blood." END QUOTES "They will drown in their own blood!" That's pretty bloodthirsty language for someone setting out to be an "honest broker" Here's how the Guardian piece concludes: "...the problem is not that Erdogan and Davutoglu want a bigger role for Turkey and are increasingly ready to go it alone. The problem, more often than not, is that when they do, they mess up." Clearly Turkey has been oppressing its Kurdish minority for decades. Is Turkey an "Apartheid State"? Here is what one poster on the Guardian website had to say: "Anyone looking for Erdogan's sudden concern for the Palestinians and his links to the IHH will find them in this article. "Its the old, old trick - distract attention from problems in your own country by creating an external enemy. Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 22 June 2010 1:02:22 PM
| |
Dear stevenlmeyer,
Your topic is Turkey and I was loath to divert it any further but some of your statements deserve a reply. I would like to hear from you why you see Singapore as “more like a very well run multinational company that a country.” while Iran is a “pathetic little dictatorship”. During the time I lived in Singapore there remained incarceration one Chia Thye Poh, widely regarded as “the longest-serving prisoner of conscience of the 20th century”. You need to show me why you think there is less democracy in Iran than Singapore. It is probably pertinent to the RPST to remember one of the first acts of the Shah on gaining power was to sign the Consortium Agreement of 1954, which effectively gave 80% of the profits of Iranian oil to the UK and the US. I think Australia currently retains one dollar in seven. But to in anyway balance the Shah's assistance to the entrepreneur class above what Amnesty International described in 1976 as the worst human rights record in the world is just plain wrong. It is his abuses through his secret police, aided and abetted by the US that pushed Iranians to a lesser evil. Just imagine the country that could have been built if it had been allowed to retain a democratic government and a fair share of its oil revenue. You would appear through your posts to be putting economics above political freedoms in your assessment of the success of a country. Dear King Hazza, You make some valid points but I suppose Israel has managed to hold together its nation complete with the ultra-orthodox and its belligerent West Bank settlers, why should it be beyond Turkey to achieve stability? As to what side the US would fall on, obviously the one that would best serve its interests. Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 22 June 2010 2:00:38 PM
| |
csteele
I am not defending the lack of freedom in Singapore. I am simply pointing out that you cannot compare a city-state like Singapore run along the lines of Singapore Inc to a big sprawling country like Turkey. Nor am I defending the Shah. I simply pointed out that when he went so did the entrepreneurs. Is the present dictator (Khameini) really an improvement on the Shah? The thrust of my post is this: Turkey it a huge success story. Will the present Islamist government derail that success? I don't know the answer. I cannot tell the future. All I can say is that some of the auguries are ominous. Perhaps, as you say, Islamists and secularists will find a way of co-existing in Turkey. And, then again, perhaps not. In the end I guess it depends on whether the AKP (Islamist) party currently in power allows genuinely free and fair elections. However given the amount of self-censorship in the Turkish media it is difficult to see how this can happen. From a recent Amnesty International report on Turkey: "Hrant Dink's case is not an exception. Many in Turkey continue to be prosecuted for the peaceful expression of their non-violent opinions. This is due both to the existence of flawed legislation and the arbitrary implementation of the law by judges and prosecutors." Hrant Dink was repeatedly prosecuted under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code that criminalizes “denigrating Turkishness”. Amnesty International has continually called for Article 301 to be abolished on the grounds that it poses a grave threat to freedom of expression, as it is worded in such broad and vague terms. Amnesty International is concerned that the number of cases opened under this article appears to have increased in 2007. The organization notes that in the past year, violations of human rights increased and measures to combat them remained insufficient. See: http://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/turkey-reveal-full-circumstances-surrounding-hrant-dink039s-murder-20080 Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 22 June 2010 2:49:32 PM
| |
csteele, it would be arguable how well Israel's holding together of various annexed provinces actually is, and it doesn't make it right- holding together just may easily mean the other groups got subjugated enough not to kick up too much of a fuss worthy of a news report.
And seeing as there is a good contrast between the secular and not-so secular peoples across Turkey, I don't think it's fair for either to be forced to comply with the wishes of the other (though I do not hide that I'm personally more concerned about the plight of the secular side). As for US protecting whomever reinforces their interests more- precisely! Sadly their sole interest seems to be toadying up to a certain few key oil-rich gulf states. Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 22 June 2010 6:33:37 PM
| |
Um, how does anyone manage to compare Israel to Turkey? Turkey subjugates 15 million Kurds daily, undertakes joint military action against its neighbour, an autonomous province (which is technically & legally under the protection of the UN) with its ally Iran. Such action being directed deliberately at destroying the civilian population.
This after the Armenian Genocide (in which at least 1M people died)? Yet the world media really doesn't care? Yes, the only real difference is that the US and Israel aren't involved, otherwise the killing of so many civilians would be front page news daily. Yes, neither Israel or America have to make any overt action to destroy Turkey, the investors are pulling out in droves (cannot imagine why, fundamentalist islam has such a good record of working with capitalists, at least where oil is not involved) and it is rapidly falling into the third world. That is where the mullahs prefer countries to be, it makes it easier for them to keep their communities in the 12th Century. As to Turkey's having the fourth largest army in the world, it is equipped with high-tech American/Israeli equipment. I cannot imagine parts are going to be all that easy to find. Posted by Custard, Wednesday, 23 June 2010 11:34:21 PM
| |
Fair points Custard- though I may point out a typo that should say Americans get along with fundamentalist Islamists when oil IS involved, if a glance at their/our "allies" on the Arabian peninsula are anything to go by.
And there most definitely would be an active push to cut off business links between Turkey and the West by fundamentalists, based on the reasons you described (along with obtaining better monopolies among other Middle-Eastern countries and companies no longer needing to compete with Europe. Not to mention Gadaffi's and various Islamic scholar's "trojan horse" story that gets ciruclated around. I sincerely believe at least half are doing it to distance Western allies/trading/VISA partners and try to drag Turkey into their world instead (some I reckon sincerely believe and endorse the trojan horse idea). Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 24 June 2010 12:55:23 AM
| |
There are comparisons one can make between Israel and Turkey. Both countries are more democratic than any other countries in the Middle East. Both countries have a population with a sizable well-educated socially-aware group and a sizeable rigid fundamentalist group.
They are more like each other in those respects than either are like any other countries in the Middle East. Posted by david f, Thursday, 24 June 2010 4:31:39 AM
| |
VERY true that, David F.
Posted by King Hazza, Thursday, 24 June 2010 3:11:51 PM
| |
Yes, but oil is NOT involved... It was when they decided to play nice (Azerbaijan was going to pump it through Armenia to Turkey, but the Kurds kept blowing it up, or was it the Armenians...) Now the Azerbaijani oil can come down through Kurdistan and out through Jordan...
Yeah, Turkey WAS democratic, it is rapidly heading the other way at the present time. Erdogan seems determined to overturn the Constitution and is holding the Army at ransom over it by using Iran as an ally. One good thing, the Hashemite's won't be overjoyed at Turkey joining the Arabs, so Jordan will be forced closer to both Israel & Kurdistan, which opens up a nice, safe land route for arms and equipment from Israel to Kurdistan. Noone answered the human rights part of my question? What a suprise... Kurds are the "other" Arabs, the ones that all the Arabs are killing off in droves, which the anti-Israel faction would rather stayed quiet. Neither that nor the Armenian Genocide are going away now though (this is bl00dy brilliant:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0Nk-qpjQBE&feature=related) Posted by Custard, Thursday, 24 June 2010 3:22:10 PM
| |
For US- Turkey is simply one of the few allies in a highly strategic part of the world (near Russia and the Middle East). But I guarantee you, all US foreign policy in the Middle East (it's highest priority by miles) revolves around the oil states first (remember the first Iraq war was to protect Kuwait), and then to the precise geographic position that Israel and Turkey hold.
I won't argue that technically Turkey is more democratic in the strict since of more elected governance- it's downfall is that there are so many parts that don't want to be there (especially now an Islamist government is in power). The Kurds being the major point that they and thhe mainstream Turkish forces have engaged in fierce bloody civil warring (the Kurds of course being an involuntarily annexed land). Armenian genocide I know too little about to comment on. Posted by King Hazza, Friday, 25 June 2010 12:28:49 AM
| |
My dear Custard,
You wrote; “Um, how does anyone manage to compare Israel to Turkey? Turkey subjugates 15 million Kurds daily, undertakes joint military action against its neighbour, an autonomous province (which is technically & legally under the protection of the UN) with its ally Iran. Such action being directed deliberately at destroying the civilian population.” Wow. I had thought it was satire originally, until I read your name. davidf was of a mind to be very kind to you so I will leave it at that. Posted by csteele, Friday, 25 June 2010 3:20:31 PM
|
One: Do you think we are seeing the death of the West and the rise of new world powers in the East?
Two: Tom, it was great talking to you this morning, but would you mind not quoting me by name? I’m afraid the government will retaliate against me, my newspaper or my business if you do.
Three: Is it true, as Prime Minister Erdogan believes, that Israel is behind the attacks by the Kurdish terrorist group P.K.K. on Turkey?
Four: Do you really think Obama can punish Turkey for voting against the U.S. at the U.N. on Iran sanctions? After all, America needs Turkey more than Turkey needs America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/opinion/20friedman.html?src=me&ref=homepage
SOME QUOTES:
"The Turks wanted to get into the European Union and were rebuffed, but I’m not sure Turkish businessmen even care today. The E.U. feels dead next to Turkey, which last year was right behind India and China among the fastest-growing economies in the world — just under 7 percent — and was the fastest-growing economy in Europe.
[..]
In 1980, Turkey’s total exports were worth $3 billion. In 2008, they were $132 billion
[..]
I’ve never visited a democracy where more people whom I interviewed asked me not to quote them by name for fear of retribution by [Prime Minister] Erdogan’s circle — in the form of lawsuits, tax investigations or being shut out of government contracts. The media here is rampantly self-censored.
[..]
The secular and moderate Muslim forces in Turkey are alarmed; the moderate Arab regimes are alarmed; the Americans are alarmed. The fight for Turkey’s soul is about to be joined in a much more vigorous way.
END QUOTES
MY questions:
--Will Turkey's rise continue? Or will it go down the Islamist path?
--A decade from now will crowds in Istanbul be shouting "death to the dictator" just as they did in Tehran a few months ago?
Interesting times ahead. I hope the US has the sense to stay out of it.