Tag Archives: Middle East

With Libya, Turkey “Returns” West

By BARIN KAYAOĞLU

March 27, 2011

[Yazının Türkçesi için buraya tıklayın.]

Barely ten days ago, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had objected to a NATO intervention in Libya. Part of Mr. Erdoğan’s criticism sprung from his belief that, in moving the international community to intervene in Libya, France wanted to get its hands on the North African nation’s oil and natural gas. The Turkish Prime Minister was so angry that he recited a very anti-Western part of the Turkish national anthem (“Civilization is but a one-tooth monster”). 

President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Erdoğan (Photo courtesy of ntvmsnbc.com)

And then, on March 23, Ankara decided to send five warships and a submarine to the Libyan coast to enforce the arms embargo against Muammar Qaddafi. Two days later, Turkey agreed to let the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) take over command once U.S. forces conclude their operations in Libya.

What explains this sudden change in the Turkish stance? More important, after Westerners have worried about Turkey’s “Eastern shift” in the past few years, is Ankara finally “heading back” West?

Yes and no.

To be sure, Turkish naval forces enforcing the international embargo against Qaddafi is very different than the Turkish Air Force attacking Qaddafi’s armies and/or defending the rebels with other NATO allies.

But not only is the seeming shift in Ankara’s Libyan policy consistent with recent trends in Turkish foreign policy, it is also a testament to the country’s Western character.

A year and a half ago, the Turkish minister of foreign trade had mentioned the Libyan government’s interest in investing $100 billion abroad and had hoped that Turkey would get a substantial portion of that money. One source indicates that Turkish construction projects initiated in Libya within the past two years alone are close to $8 billion. Another report estimates that Turkey will invest €35 billion in Libya’s infrastructure over the next ten years.

That is precisely the indication for Turkey’s “Westernness” – pursuing economic ends with political means.

And it’s an ironic twist: Turks, just like other nations in the developing world, regularly blame developed countries (with some justification) for manipulating political troubles in developing countries in order to “exploit” them. Although I don’t think that statement explains recent events in the Middle East and North Africa, it is certainly true that, in the contest between political ideals and economic needs, many Western countries frequently choose the latter over the former. Most of the time, they mix both.

Turkey may or may not be “moving East.” Its foreign policy axis may or may not be “shifting.” But in the final analysis, Turkey’s Western commitments still matter – especially as Turkey acts very “Western” these days.

Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. candidate in history at The University of Virginia. He welcomes all comments, questions, and exchanges. To contact him, click here.

You can also follow him on Twitter (@barinkayaoglu) and Facebook (BarınKayaoğlu.com).

Share

Can Turkey Serve as a Model for the Middle East and North Africa?

By BARIN KAYAOĞLU

February 24, 2011

[Yazının Türkçesi için buraya tıklayın.]

First it was Tunisia and Egypt. Now it’s Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and everything in between.

As popular revolutions spread across the Middle East and North Africa, politicians and media people in Turkey seem to have reached a consensus that Turkey should lead the region. While Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s nostalgia for the Ottoman Empire is well-known, the opposition leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu expressed the region’s need for a “Mustafa Kemal.”

But both Turkey and other Middle Eastern countries need more than optimism and nostalgia.

Political leaders and Ottoman enthusiasts in Turkey should bear in mind that the Ottoman system had worked well until the moment it didn’t. From the Skull Tower in Serbia to the forced immigrations of Balkan Muslims into Anatolia and the forced deportation of Armenians in 1915, the collapse of Pax Ottomana (Ottoman peace) left many people in the region with tragic memories. Overall, those tragedies came about because the Ottoman Empire had failed to build representative political institutions and a free market economy to counter ethnic separatism.

The Ottoman Empire’s collapse at the end of World War I left a deep political vacuum in the Balkans and the Middle East-North Africa. And neither European colonialism nor the imposition of national boundaries after 1918 managed to create democratic, peaceful, and prosperous countries in those regions. On the contrary, the Arab-Israeli conflict, the wars in former Yugoslavia, and dictatorships in the Middle East and North Africa dominated the scene until now.

Fortunately, the European Union has managed to move the Balkans forward (with the exception of Bosnia-Herzegovina, which is another story). So it’s a question of whether Turkey can help to move the Middle East and North Africa forward.

The answer is both yes and no. For one thing, Turkey has many things to improve –especially its democracy and economy. A country where a media group suffers exorbitant tax fines after criticizing the prime minister, where the prime minister and not couples decide how many children they’re going to have, where the prime minister and not the free market knows who’s going to build a new petrochemical complex, and where deep socioeconomic injustices still prevail, will have serious trouble appealing to other Middle Eastern countries for the simple reason that those countries already have all that. Tunisians, Egyptians, Algerians, Libyans, Yemenis, Jordanians, Iranians, and Bahrainis do not need a political-economic system where their leaders tell them how to lead their lives and keep them poor. They already have that.

But that’s not to say that Turkey doesn’t have anything to offer. Quite the contrary: Despite its shortcomings, Turkey’s ability to maintain a reasonably democratic and secular system in a Muslim-majority country shows that Islam does not preclude democratic or good governance. In the post-September 11 world, that fact can inspire burgeoning political movements in other Muslim countries and weaken non-Muslims’ prejudices against the Muslim world. Moreover, although reviving the Ottoman Empire is a potentially hurtful idea, Ankara’s grand strategy to create a free trade and cooperation zone covering the Balkans, the Middle East, North Africa, the Caucasus, and even Central Asia can ease – if not completely end – a lot of tensions in this part of the world.

But if Turkey wants to lead that project, it has to lead by example. On the political front, Turkey has to adopt a new constitution that protects citizens from the state (not vice versa) and establishes a genuinely democratic order. In other words, no more restrictions on free speech so long as it doesn’t advocate violence; no more persecuting those who have their own ideas about the Armenian deportations of 1915; no more denying education to women in headscarves; no more arbitrary arrest of military officers and journalists on flimsy grounds; and no more mayors going to prison for reciting a poem in public.

On the economic front, the Turkish state should lower the exorbitantly high taxes on gasoline, food, and services, which punish the lower and middle classes, and shift the tax burden to the upper class. It should take the necessary legal steps to combat corruption and improve standards for doing business in order to attract potential investors. Most important, the Turkish state should make health services and public education free for the needy – not just in theory but also in practice (as opposed to the current situation where even poor people have to pay for “public” health and “public” education) so as to maintain a well-trained and healthy workforce. In other words, a state overseeing the workings of the free market rather than commanding them; a business environment where success is determined not by access to politicians but by managerial competence; and a much better position on the United Nation’s Human Development Index rankings (Turkey’s current standing is 83rd out of 169 – behind many of the countries it’s trying to serve as a “model”).

Turkey can support its activist foreign policy with genuine domestic reform much more successfully. Raising the standards of living for the people of Turkey is even more important than saying nice things to the peoples of the region and their leaders. If the AKP government and the opposition are sincere about Turkey serving as a model for the Middle East and North Africa, they should put their house in order first.

Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. candidate in history at The University of Virginia. He welcomes all comments, questions, and exchanges. To contact him, click here.

You can also follow him on Twitter (@barinkayaoglu) and Facebook (BarınKayaoğlu.com).

Share

The Recent Protests in Iran and Their Prospects for Success

By BARIN KAYAOĞLU 

February 21, 2011

Last week and yesterday, mass protests broke out across Iran. Originally called by opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi (both of them presidential candidates in Iran’s controversial presidential elections in 2009), participants ostensibly wanted to show solidarity with the opposition in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries currently in turmoil. The real reason, of course, was to show the Iranian government that the opposition was still strong. 

And they succeeded: Despite security forces’ warning that demonstrators will be stopped, thousands marched in Tehran, Esfahan, Kermanshah, Shiraz, Tabriz, and Mashhad – most of them university students. In response, several members of the Iranian parliament demanded the execution of Mr. Mousavi, Mr. Karroubi, and former reformist President Mohammed Khatami for “sedition.” 

Which brings us to the central question: Can the current wave of protests in Iran succeed? 

Notwithstanding the vibrancy of the protests and many Iranians’ frustration with the current government, radical change in the short-run is unlikely. For one thing, a flashpoint to mobilize the people – comparable to allegations of fraud in the presidential elections in 2009 – is missing. Many Iranians sympathize with, and relate to, the plight of other Middle Eastern people rising up against inept autocrats. But other people’s troubles are not enough to cause Iranian tensions to boil over. 

Furthermore, unlike 2009, where dozens of citizens were killed in the post-election protests, this time, the government managed to suppress protests with minimal bloodshed. Sophisticated methods such as deploying riot police around rallying points before the protestors could march, using tear gas and rubber bullets instead of live ammunition, and shutting down internet servers and mobile phone networks prevented the protests from getting out of control. 

To be sure, that is not the end of it because the current anger in Iran goes back to the frustrated hopes in the Islamic Revolution of 1978-79. From the 1950s until the Revolution, the Shah had promised to create an egalitarian, prosperous, and democratic Iran. But he delivered anything but equality, prosperity, and democracy to the people of Iran. Thus, the Revolution came with the promise to end inequality, poverty, and oppression.

Thirty-two years later, the Revolution has still not realized that promise. The survival of the Islamic Republic depends on whether its leaders will do something about that.

— 

Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. candidate in history at The University of Virginia. He welcomes all comments, questions, and exchanges. To contact him, click here

You can also follow him on Twitter (@barinkayaoglu) and Facebook (BarınKayaoğlu.com).

Share

Egypt: “Sic Semper Tyrannis!”*

By BARIN KAYAOĞLU

February 13, 2011

*“Thus always to tyrants,” Brutus had said to Julius Caesar in 44 BC while killing Rome’s savior-turned-dictator. And thus spoke the people of Egypt to their own stabilizer-turned-dictator of 30 years, Hosni Mubarak.

Notwithstanding the title of this post and the historical analogy, it is auspicious that the new Egyptian Revolution spared the lives of so many people (including Mr. Mubarak’s). Great praise is due unto the Egyptian High Command, whose refusal to interfere with (and even tacit support for) the protestors assured that outcome.

But in the million mile march to prosperity and democracy, Egyptians have taken a few small (nevertheless important) steps. Now, they have to create a free and just political and economic system so that their country will never again be ruled by a modern-day pharaoh.

The first thing that Egypt’s current leadership, the Supreme Military Council, can do is to abrogate the 44-year-old emergency law. Briefly suspended in 1980 but in constant effect since the assassination of President Anwar Sadat, Mr. Mubarak’s predecessor, the state of emergency has been the root of Egypt’s many ills: restricting citizens’ rights, press censorship, and mass arrests. If anything, Mr. Mubarak’s ouster has demonstrated that the emergency law is not worth the paper on which it was written. Citizens did come together and did overthrow the man that the emergency law was supposed to protect.

Next, instead of calling early elections, Egypt should convene a convention of wise men (and women!) to amend the constitution. This convention should include all social groups: representatives of political parties (including the Muslim Brotherhood), labor unions, farmers’ groups, professional associations, business groups, Coptic Christians, and religious scholars from Al-Azhar University (without the ulama’s support, the new system will be in trouble).

Luckily, if the emergency law is abrogated by then, the constitutional convention won’t have too much to do because the letter of the Egyptian constitution is reasonably democratic. Aside from changing articles 73 through 85, which regulate the vast powers of the president, strengthening the language of judiciary regulations (especially getting rid of Article 171 about “State Security Courts”) and freedom of enterprise (which will require changing article 24 that gives the people the right to “control all means of production and direct their surplus in accordance with the development plan laid down by the state”) should have priority. These changes will release the creative energies of Egyptian people who will do a much better job than Egypt’s state-run economy – all the while preserving the constitution’s egalitarian spirit.

Finally, as stated in Article 189 of the Egyptian constitution, the amendments should be taken to a popular referendum. Beyond a legal necessity, a popular referendum will remind the people that the new political order is something they signed up to. When something goes wrong in the future (as they frequently do in every country – political crises, corruption scandals, economic downturns, etc.), Egyptians will know that they were the ones who chose the current political system.

Let us hope that the new revolution will produce a different result than the one Egypt had in 1952 when army officers overthrew King Farouk with the promise of prosperity and democracy. In a few years, under the leadership of Gamal Abdel Nasser – who had good intentions, it must be said – Egypt became a one-man dictatorship, with tragic results.

“Development through democracy” deserves a real chance in Egypt this time.

Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. candidate in history at The University of Virginia. He welcomes all comments, questions, and exchanges. To contact him, click here.

You can also follow him on Twitter (@barinkayaoglu) and Facebook (BarınKayaoğlu.com).

Share

Notice to Egypt: Don’t Listen to Turkey, Iran, or Israel

By BARIN KAYAOĞLU

February 8, 2011

Opinion-makers and political leaders in Turkey and Iran are suggesting that Egypt should somehow be inspired by their regimes and foreign policies for its new political order. Turkey appears to be a successful case of a secular democracy in a Muslim-majority country. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has called upon Egyptian President Mubarak to heed the voice of his people. The subtext: Egypt should join in Ankara’s promotion of open borders and free trade in the Middle East, coupled with a new foreign policy free from Western influence.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic of Iran, celebrating its Revolution this week, hints at the same idea with a twist: The new regime in Egypt should stop acting like a “puppet” of the West, heed the voice of its people, and take a firm stand against Israel as it had during the Cold War. Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has done just that. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei argues that the “Islamic movement” in Egypt may be following Iran’s revolution. Egypt is joining in, or so the idea.

Looking at the situation, the Israeli government is concerned that a government hostile to Israel might come out of the current turmoil. Jerusalem almost sounds as if it prefers everything in Egypt to stay as it is.

The new Egyptian government, to be formed once President Mubarak steps down, is well-advised to be extremely careful about the Turkish, Iranian, and Israeli positions.

For one thing, it would be extremely hard to replicate Turkey’s secularism or Iran’s religious guardianship. And the bigger problem with Turkey and Iran these days is the two governments’ prevalent authoritarianism. It’s a much bigger problem in Iran since the controversial presidential elections of 2009.

Of course, Turkey is not doing substantially better. Mr. Erdoğan takes a “holier-than-thou” attitude but his recent policies aren’t that impressive. For one thing, Mr. Erdoğan is doing his best to secure the support of religiously conservative Turks by deepening the religious-secular divide in Turkey. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has turned to be just as incompetent as any previous Turkish leader when it comes to solving the Kurdish question. Why would Egyptians want to replace one political regime producing an incompetent autocrat for other regimes that produce incompetent autocrats?

As for Israeli concerns, while Egyptian mediation between the Jewish state and HAMAS is a noble undertaking, the new government in Cairo should stop acting like an enabler for Israel’s excesses in Palestine. This is not to suggest (unlike Mr. Khamenei) that Egypt should start saber-rattling with Israel at the earliest convenience. On the contrary, doing the Arab and Muslim world’s bidding against Israel during the Cold War was just as futile as doing Israel’s bidding in the Arab and Muslim world today. Egypt has no use for either alternative.

In the final analysis, in transitioning to a new political order, Egyptian leaders should take nothing into consideration except their country’s advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, the motor of Egypt’s current transition is a non-violent populace. Furthermore, the opposition boasts internationally respected figures such as Amr Mousa and Mohammed El-Baradei. Finally, the increase in foreign direct investment in the past few years (it almost reached $10 billion last year) means that international entrepreneurs consider Egypt to be a good place to do business.

Unfortunately, Egypt’s structural weaknesses far outweigh its strengths: state control over the economy; a corrupt bureaucracy (a natural result of the previous problem); lack of upward social mobility (Presidents Nasser, Sadat, and Mubarak had all come from humble backgrounds and had risen in society through education – no Egyptian born to modest circumstances has similar prospects today); 60 years of authoritarian government and lack of experience in democracy.

Addressing these problems should be at the top of the new Egyptian government’s agenda. Not the concerns of Turkey, Iran, or Israel. If Ankara, Tehran, and Jerusalem want to help Egypt, they can do so by minding their own business.

Barın Kayaoğlu is a Ph.D. candidate in history at The University of Virginia. He welcomes all comments, questions, and exchanges. To contact him, click here.

You can also follow him on Twitter (@barinkayaoglu) and Facebook (BarınKayaoğlu.com).

Share