America and Erdogan

Oddly enough after I wrote the last piece a friend forwarded the following link:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-tribune-of-anatolia-america-s-dark-view-of-turkish-premier-erdogan-a-732084.html

There's some overlap but rather than synthesize the pieces, I've posted both.

A few comments:

Why would Turkey want to join the EU?

For more than a decade the EU has blocked their entry.

Turks are being attacked in Germany and Europe as a whole is turning against Islam.

The Turkish Military has for years represented the interests of the United States and any time the Turkish people democratically elect any leader who turns against Kemalism, they instigate a coup. That last instance of this was the 'soft' coup of 1997.

For decades guided by Ataturk's vision, Turkey was supposed to turn to the West. They switched their alphabet, they disowned the Caliphate. They joined NATO and stood with the West during the Cold War.

And what thanks do they get? They're treated as a pariah state.

The 1980 coup and the end of the Cold War afforded Turkey to re-examine itself. I wonder how many Turks looked at Greece and how they had been manipulated by the United States since the Greek Civil War. They saw so clearly how the Americans had backed the Colonels, and then when Greece was up against a wall, abandoned them, leading to Greece's violent rejection of the United States and departure from NATO. How many Turks after 1980 realized they were no different? The United States would do the same to them in a heartbeat. They stood with Turkey during the Cyprus episode, but would America turn on Turkey when it came to Israel or the EU?

The Turkish people began a long process of reflection and the country is split. They are torn between secularism and a mild form of Islamism. Many have realized their interests are not being served by being a lapdog to the West.

Does this mean that they will totally reject the West and embrace some form of fanatical Islam? Not at all. Turkey is finding itself and reverting to its historic role as a bridge between the East and West. They have a strong culture rooted in Turkishness. They're Muslim but they're Turkish first and foremost.

The funniest part about this article as that Erdogan's cronies remind me of exactly the same sorts of things people were saying about Bush and his administration. In fact the Bush administration seemed to glory in its lack of 'technocratic' depth.

As far as corruption the United States can hardly point a finger. The United States has played no small role in corrupting Turkish politics through the 'Deep State'. But in addition, the United States has an open and institutionalized form of corruption everyone except the American public seems to recognize.

But again, the United States has never had any qualms about dealing with corrupt officials when it serves their interests. Yulia Tymoshenko while certainly pleasant to look at, was also notoriously corrupt, and yet the United States was more than happy to back in her in the Ukrainian tug of war with Russia. There are literally dozens of other examples ranging from Latin America, to Africa and of course Asia.

As I've said repeatedly there is a danger in misinterpreting Turkey's Islamist turn. I would call this soft-Islamism. They want to set aside Ataturk's vision of a secular Turkey. A new Turkey rooted more in Islamic identity will also be able to make peace with the Kurdish population. It won't have to be Turkey for the Turks anymore...at least not with such an emphatic tone. They want Islam favoured but are not looking to destroy secularists or people of other faiths.

This is similar to the mainstream Christian Right in the United States. This is equivalent to what I call the Dobson or Focus on the Family agenda. They want their version of Christianity favoured, but they're not looking for the state to eliminate all other forms of religion. This can be contrasted with Theonomy which is a more severe and exclusivist form that would seek to outlaw other religions and ultimately would result in the persecution of all who failed to submit to their vision.

The AKP in Turkey represent the soft version. They are not the equivalent of the Ayatollah's of Iran, Hezbollah or Al Qaeda.

The United States is alarmed for various reasons. Turkey is so geographically significant they desperately want to keep it in their camp... all the more as tensions continue to rise with Russia. Turkey is one of the keys to the Middle Eastern policy and military strategy. Turkey has in the past and can continue to play a role in influencing American interests in Central Asia. Turkey has been the key Islamic ally, the model for other Islamic countries to aspire to. If the United States loses Turkey, it will be a sign to the world that NATO is on life support and American power is in jeopardy.

But the United States has a dilemma. It speaks of democracy and self-determination and yet has continually demonstrated it only believes in this when the country in question makes the 'right' choice that is in accord with Washington's desires. In this age of new media, people are waking up. People are learning more about the past and they're realizing the United States is a great hypocrite and dangerous to all those who defy it. If the United States intervenes again, they will find Turkey even further outside their circle. Erdogan may drop out of the picture, but if the United States intervenes they are unlikely to end up with another Turgut Ozal. Instead of Erdogan they may find an Erbakan or a member of the SP (Felicity Party) coming to power which would be a disaster for American policymakers.